The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Mr Speaker: I have received notification from the First Minister, the Rt Hon David Trimble MP, that he will be absent from the Assembly today.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister advised me, in a letter dated 3 December 2001, that they have jointly agreed that the Deputy First Minister will deal with a number of items of Assembly business that fall to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. When making statements on plenary meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British- Irish Council, the Deputy First Minister is, of course, speaking on behalf of all Ministers who attended those meetings. When answering questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, he is undertaking the responsibilities of them both.

Assembly: Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that a suspension of Standing Orders requires cross-community support.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That this Assembly suspends Standing Order 10(2) and Standing Order 10(6) for Monday 10 December 2001 — [The Deputy First Minister.]

British-Irish Council: Plenary Meeting

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on the British-Irish Council plenary meeting that was held on 30 November 2001 in Dublin.

Mr Mark Durkan: I wish to make a statement on the second summit meeting of the British-Irish Council. All the Northern Irish Ministers who attended the meeting have approved this report, and it is made on their behalf.
The First Minister and I, together with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, represented the Northern Ireland Executive. Representatives of the British and Irish Governments, the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales, the Isle of Man Government and the states of Jersey and Guernsey also attended.
The main focus of the meeting was the issue of drug misuse and the development of further co-operation in that area. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety explained the steps being taken by the Northern Ireland Executive. In particular, the British- Irish Council agreed elements of a framework for future co-operation which will focus on the two key areas of demand reduction, incorporating prevention and treatment, and supply reduction, incorporating law enforcement. This future co-operation will include the further development of information exchanges and joint actions.
Among the areas covered by enhanced information exchange will be co-operation on models of best practice, research, data pilot programmes and rehabilitation and reintegration strategies. The Council also noted the importance of information technology in enhancing information exchange and agreed to further examination of possibilities in that area.
It was agreed that specific joint actions could include joint awareness campaigns — for example, highlighting the risk of heroin use and targeting young people who use so-called recreational drugs. An agreement to develop joint training initiatives could also include exchange programmes for those members of the British-Irish Council who are engaged in drug-related work.
The importance of targeting the assets of criminals engaged in drug trafficking was widely acknowledged. In this context, the background to the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) in Ireland and its success in targeting the assets of drug barons was regarded as significant. To advance work in the agreed areas the Council established a group of senior officials with a mandate to prepare recommendations for future co-operation. Those will be reviewed by a ministerial meeting on drugs, and progress will be reported to a future British-Irish Council summit.
An update was provided on work being undertaken in sectoral areas by the relevant lead Administrations.
At the British-Irish Council environment sector meeting in London in October 2000, Ministers agreed that many environmental issues of mutual interest could be taken forward, with added value for all participants through closer co-operation.
From the range of topics discussed, it was agreed that several priority work areas would be taken forward with individual member Administrations in the lead. Consequently, the Irish Government and the Isle of Man are taking the lead in preparing a paper on radioactive waste from Sellafield. That will be discussed at a future meeting of the environment sector. I drew the Council’s attention to concerns raised by Members of this Assembly and stressed the importance of a full exchange of information on the issue.
The UK Government have taken the lead in examining issues of climate change. The climate change group has met twice and has agreed to extend the climate change scenarios of the forthcoming UK Climate Impacts Programme 2002 to cover all the British-Irish Council Administrations.
The Scottish Executive look forward to hosting the next British-Irish Council environment sector meeting in Edinburgh next spring. That will include a discussion, initiated and led by the Scottish Executive, on the difficulties and challenges of finding more sustainable ways of dealing with generated waste.
The Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales provided an update on the Council’s work on social inclusion. Recognising that there are strong commonalities across the British-Irish Council areas, proposals included a community conference to promote sharing of good practice on particular aspects of social inclusion. The British-Irish Council web site will shortly launch a section on social inclusion. That will promote community networking and will engage with communities on the British-Irish Council’s programme of work on social inclusion.
A report has already been made to the Assembly on the inaugural transport sector meeting, held in Belfast on 19 December 2000 under the joint chairmanship of the First Minister and the then Deputy First Minister.
At that meeting there was a wide-ranging debate on the discussion paper prepared by the Northern Ireland Executive, and agreement was reached on the need for an integrated and sustainable approach to transport issues that would take account of the relevant economic, social and environmental issues.
In addition, a range of key issues were identified that will inform future work. They included the problems of peripherality, road safety, regional air links, transport in rural areas, exchanges of information, experiences in areas such as public-private partnerships and links between transport and land-use planning. Existing and future strategies for dealing with integrated transport issues and policies were also noted.
The Council decided that the Northern Ireland Executive would convene an early meeting of senior officials to examine an agreed menu of options and prepare detailed recommendations for work in several initial priority areas. Recommendations will then be submitted to a further meeting for approval.
In November 2000, Jersey chaired a wide-ranging discussion on the knowledge economy, and several further useful discussions have been held since. A key issue that has been identified is the problem of a lack of information technology skills among significant groups of people, especially in remoter areas. The digital divide is seen as a central problem which acts as a barrier to a range of strategies to increase social inclusion. Jersey is establishing a project to map and analyse member Administrations’ initiatives to improve access to the Internet and to ensure that the bulk of the population can readily acquire computing skills. To take that work forward, Jersey will host a major conference for decision makers, Bridging the Digital Divide, in April 2002.
In consultation with other member Administrations, Jersey, along with the British-Irish Council’s secretariat, has taken the lead in designing the Council’s web site. In the first instance, the aim is to create a public showcase for the work of the British-Irish Council that will be launched in spring 2002.
The Council agreed that Guernsey will do work on tourism while the Isle of Man will take the lead in health, with a focus on the application of telemedicine. The Council also heard proposals to improve the workings of the British-Irish Council and agreed that each member Administration and the Council will consider them further.
The Council agreed that Jersey will host the next summit in April 2002 and that the meeting will focus on the knowledge economy. Scotland and Wales will host a summit in September 2002, and Northern Ireland will host one early in 2003. A copy of the communiqué issued following the meeting has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr David McClarty: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that there should be more activity in the British-Irish Council than has been the case to date?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive and I agree that there needs to be much more activity in the British-Irish Council. That was only the second summit meeting. Owing to political difficulties, we were unable to hold summit meetings earlier, and we have been unable to follow through on the sectoral meetings in the way that was planned. The meeting on 30 November was businesslike, and people discussed drugs issues. Many of the member Administrations found the meeting worthwhile and a useful model for ongoing work in the British-Irish Council. That proves that the Council can work in an organic and effective way that helps and reflects the interests of the member Administrations.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: What consideration was given to the operation and success of the Criminal Assets Bureau in the South in freezing and seizing the assets of drug barons? Has consideration been given to introducing similar legal powers in the United Kingdom?

Mr Mark Durkan: As I said, the importance of targeting the assets of criminals engaged in drug trafficking was widely acknowledged. The Irish Government took the opportunity to explain the background to the establishment and operation of the Criminal Assets Bureau in Ireland. The bureau has had significant success in targeting the assets of drug barons. Many of the Administrations had questions on this, and useful ideas were exchanged.
The successful operation of the bureau was taken into account when the Proceeds of Crime Bill was being drawn up at Westminster. However, the exchanges at the meeting helped to air other issues that may be considered by UK Administrations in the future.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Deputy First Minister has pointed to the benefits to everyone of exchanging information. I welcome the reference to Sellafield, although I note the absence of any information on the response of the British Government. I am certain that the other Assemblies and Parliaments that were represented at the meeting expressed widespread concerns.
References to information technology and the knowledge economy are recurring themes, and that is to be welcomed. Will the Deputy First Minister comment on the importance to the economy of extending broadband technology throughout the region and say whether this was recognised in the discussions? This area of the economy is led by the private sector, and that approach is inadequate because the area west of the River Bann will lag behind areas around the Greater Belfast conurbation.

Mr Mark Durkan: I was happy to reflect the fact that all parties in the Assembly had expressed concerns about Sellafield. Concerns were also expressed by people on both sides of the border of this island. The British Government seemed to acknowledge those concerns, but it is not the first time that they have done so. The concerns were substantiated further by the court case. I hope that we will receive better information and that we will be more directly in the loop on these issues in the future. The British-Irish Council will address the issue again in the environment sectoral meeting, so we will be involved as a participating Administration.
The importance of the knowledge economy is emphasised in the Programme for Government. It is of huge importance to the region, because it is where the path to competitiveness lies. It is important that the matter be addressed by the British-Irish Council, and the Administration in Jersey are doing useful work on drawing together proposals from the other Administrations.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I welcome the fact that the Deputy First Minister has drawn attention to the Sellafield problem. However, both authorities on this island have expressed enormous concern, and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has provided a scant response, determined to press on with further development there. If Mr Blair is not prepared to deal with this potential time bomb and sitting target, is it worth having a British-Irish Council?

Mr Mark Durkan: Yes. The fact that we were able to address an issue such as drugs in the useful and practical way that we did demonstrates the value of the British-Irish Council. Its value will be underscored by the useful work that will flow from it.
The same also applies in other sectors. The issue of Sellafield is a vexed one. However, the British-Irish Council gives the various Administrations who share these islands an avenue through which to deal with such issues. Without the British-Irish Council, what forum would the Administrations have to raise those issues? What sectoral format would exist to allow them to take the lead in examining the issue of radioactive waste from Sellafield? The value of the British-Irish Council is that it provides a forum in which concerns can be raised, and in which the British Government can offer reassurance if they so wish.

Rev Robert Coulter: Does the Minister agree that benefits can accrue to Northern Ireland from work in the sectors being pursued by the British-Irish Council, particularly in the area of tourism?

Mr Mark Durkan: All member Administrations of the British-Irish Council recognise the value of the different sectors on which we seek to focus in this early programme of work. Guernsey will take the lead on the tourism issue. We know how important tourism is for us and that we can make up ground in that area. We have usefully addressed that issue on a North/South basis, mainly through the setting up of Tourism Ireland Ltd. It has worked directly with other tourism authorities in these islands and has examined the implications for tourism of the events of 11 September, not least the issue of air links. That is a matter that the Administrations who share these islands should address together.

Mr Arthur Doherty: Mr Mitchel McLaughlin’s question on Sellafield covered many of the issues that I wished to raise. From what he heard at the meeting, is the Deputy First Minister satisfied that the UK Government will give that matter the serious attention that it deserves, and that they will base future actions on the well-being of their people and others, rather than on purely commercial interests?

Mr Mark Durkan: I would like to give the Member the assurance that he seeks. However, it would be rash and premature for me to do so. The British- Irish Council will deal with that matter again. The Irish Government and the Isle of Man Administration are taking the lead in addressing the issue, but other Administrations will also be involved. The British Government will play a key part, and we must wait and see what develops, just as Members will watch with interest the developments arising from the recent court cases.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Deputy First Minister for his report on a welcome second plenary meeting of the British-Irish Council. The Minister referred to the Jersey Administration working alongside the British-Irish Council secretariat to construct a web site — again, that is welcome. Does he believe that the size of the secretariat is adequate, given that, when I was last apprised of its size, it comprised one employee in Whitehall and a part-time employee in Dublin? Do the Minister and the Executive feel that the secretariat is large enough to carry out the work outlined this morning?

Mr Mark Durkan: The arrangements for the secretariat are as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement, and responsibility for it falls to the British and Irish Governments. Given that due to circumstances, not many meetings have taken place, the size of the secretariat and the question of how active its role has been have not mattered very much.
The British-Irish Council meeting did hear some proposals to further consider the operation of the secretariat, and it has been agreed that officials will look at the issue, and that papers will issue in due course. The matter will then be subject to full consideration by the relevant member Administrations, as well as by the Council itself.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: The Minister referred to the knowledge economy, and I want to explore that topic further with him. Can he say what work is being prepared in Northern Ireland, and by which Departments, on the key issue of bridging the digital divide?

Mr Mark Durkan: Much work aimed at bridging the digital divide is already under way in Departments here. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has established 19 access points across the region for farmers. The Department for Employment and Learning has created 32 learndirect centres throughout the region, aimed at providing citizens with the skills needed to access the digital world. That Department has also implemented the Electronic Libraries for Northern Ireland project, through which libraries will become information hubs for their communities.
A number of other initiatives will be included in a policy statement on bridging the digital divide. The Central Information and Technology Unit in our own Department will bring that forward for public consultation in 2002. It will aim first to scope the problem and, secondly, to draw together the many current and planned initiatives, as well as proposing a way forward.

Mr Derek Hussey: On the issue of transport, the Deputy First Minister mentioned the transfer of information and experiences in public-private partnerships. Of course, in the South, as he will be well aware, such partnerships were an option of choice, whereas here in Northern Ireland they may be an option of necessity. He also said that existing and future strategies for dealing with integrated transport issues and policy were noted. Are we talking here about the inclusion of public-private partnerships within such strategies?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member has raised several points. Obviously, in looking at transport issues overall, the Council will want to look, not just at transport arrangements in the islands and between the different areas, but also at experience in each administrative area on more localised or regional transport issues. Clearly, the use of public-private partnerships in relation to key transport infrastructure is going to be a relevant area for exchange of information and best practice, and that will follow through. Obviously there are different approaches in the different Administrations, but that adds to the benefit and value of the British-Irish Council as a forum where we can look at the different practices and establish what is best practice for different types of projects, according to their scale or significance.
Regarding other transport issues and integrated strategies, it is again going to be a case of looking at different approaches in different areas. Further work is needed on that. The Northern Ireland Administration have agreed to take the lead on transport. However, it could well be that, as we get into discrete areas of transport, other Administrations will take the lead in looking at particular issues or aspects, such as we have seen in relation to the environment. We have seen other Administrations take the lead on specific issues that have emerged in that sector. We are looking forward to further development in the transport sector.

Mr Alban Maginness: The importance of targeting the assets of criminals involved in the drug trade and drug trafficking was widely acknowledged at the meeting.
What proposals are there for future co-operation? In particular, what protocols are to be developed to cover co- operation between the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency (CARA) and the Criminal Assets Bureau in Dublin?
The Minister mentioned a ministerial meeting on drugs. When will that meeting take place?

Mr Mark Durkan: Further developments will be the subject of consideration by officials and, subsequently, by Ministers. I hope that the work will be developed during the spring.
Many member Administrations expressed particular interest in the operation of the Criminal Assets Bureau and referred to issues that might arise if they were to follow a similar course. Given the movement of the assets of drug barons between different administrative territories, we must co-ordinate and exchange information that could help to target those assets. However, that will be the subject of further work, and it would be wrong for me to anticipate what might emerge and when.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The statement included reference to social inclusion and the launch of a new web site in 2002. A meeting held in the Maiden City at the weekend addressed the problem of the alienation of the Unionist community, particularly in west Tyrone. What benefits will those Unionist people, who have suffered so much, gain from such a web site?

Mr Mark Durkan: The web site will be a British-Irish Council web site. Any web site that exchanges information between community groups working throughout these islands should be of interest. Obviously, it will be for each group to identify what is of most interest to it. The web site will also serve as a platform on which community groups can set out issues of concern as well as giving details of actions that have been of benefit to them and others.
The web site is being developed in the context of the British-Irish Council’s work on social inclusion, and that work is led by the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales. They propose to hold a community conference, drawing together people from all the administrative areas, which shows that the approach taken will be as responsive and inclusive as possible.

North/South Ministerial Council: Plenary Meeting

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of their wish to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council plenary meeting on 30 November 2001 in Dublin.

Mr Mark Durkan: With permission, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Ministers who attended, I will make a statement on the third plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, held on 30 November 2001 in Dublin Castle. The nine Ministers whose names have been notified to the Assembly participated in the meeting.
The Council agreed that the first annual report on its activities from December 1999 to 31 December 2000 should be published. It also received a report on the work of the various sectoral councils since January and noted the progress made in implementing the work programme set out in December 1999 at the first plenary meeting. Several Ministers described the work being taken forward in the sectors for which they had responsibility. It was clear that good progress was being made.
The report includes a range of practical initiatives, such as the launch of the equity network programme by InterTradeIreland. That was designed to promote the availability of venture capital to businesses in the North and South and to develop awareness of the potential of private equity investment to foster growth in private enterprises, particularly in the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector. Another initiative is work in the health sector to consider the report of the acute hospitals review group in view of its suggestion of the potential to develop existing cross-border arrangements for the benefit of patients.
A third initiative involves work done in the agriculture sector to limit the spread of foot-and-mouth disease on the island of Ireland. That is now to be reinforced by an official steering group that will develop a strategy for the control of animal movements on the island, drawing on work done in both jurisdictions. That group will consider the means of prevention, containment and eradication of future epizootic disease outbreaks on the island. There is also work to develop a joint market development programme for recycled materials and goods to encourage and support the expansion of waste recycling on an all-island basis.
These are only four examples drawn from a much wider range of measures designed to secure mutual benefit for all. The Council looks forward to continuing progress being made in all areas of its remit.
Approval was given to a schedule of council meetings to take place over the coming months. That includes plans to hold a first meeting in the next few weeks in institutional format, involving the First Minister, myself, and Brian Cowen, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The Council noted a progress report on the work undertaken by a working group established to take forward a study on the establishment of an independent North/ South consultative forum. The Council agreed that this issue should be addressed at the forthcoming meeting in institutional format. A further progress report will be made at the next plenary.
The Council agreed to publish the report on a study on the obstacles to cross-border mobility on the island of Ireland. The two Administrations agreed that views would not be offered on the conclusions at this stage, pending publication and a process of consultation to give interested organisations, including Government Departments and individuals, the opportunity to present their views on the recommendations and their implementation.
The steering group will remain in place to manage the consultation exercise. It will then present to the next plenary meeting a paper summarising, evaluating and costing the recommendations, and reaching conclusions relating to implementation proposals where appropriate. The Council also agreed that the steering group should ensure that in considering proposals, care should be taken to avoid both creating barriers to east-west mobility and creating unjustified advantage for cross- border workers beyond that available in the respective jurisdictions.
The Council agreed an opinion on the budgets for the North/South bodies for the period 2002 to 04. It is envisaged that £54·37 million/92·07 million euro will be spent by the six bodies in 2002. The respective contributions from each Administration will be £40·01 million/67·74 million euro from the Irish Government and £14·37 million/24·33 million euro from the devolved Administration.
On competitiveness, the Council received a report commissioned by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, working in conjunction with InterTradeIreland.
The report covered a broad spectrum of work in a range of administrative functions, and the Council requested that the relevant Government Departments and agencies pursue the competitiveness agenda to achieve mutual economic benefit in the areas for which they are responsible.
There was a useful exchange of information on key priorities in the Irish Government’s Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, the National Development Plan and specific sections of the Administration’s draft Programme for Government. The Council noted the position taken on each and welcomed the opportunity to discuss each document.
There was a useful exchange of views between Ministers from the North and the South on the impact of the 11 September attacks in the United States. They discussed the economic impact of those horrific events, particularly their effect on tourism in both parts of the island. The Council noted that the tourism agencies on the island of Ireland are developing proposals to reduce the impact on the tourism industry. Emergency and contingency planning were discussed, and the need for continued cross-border co-operation on health issues, and for structures in each jurisdiction to plan for major incidents, was highlighted.
The Council agreed that its next plenary meeting would be held in Northern Ireland in May 2002. A copy of the communiqué issued after the meeting has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr Billy Bell: Can the Minister assure the Assembly that when addressing issues of North/South mobility, no action will be taken that would disadvantage people in Northern Ireland who wish to move between here and Great Britain?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Council agreed that given that the steering group is carrying out a study of obstacles to mobility and that a consultation exercise is still to take place, care should be taken to ensure that the work does not result in any new barriers to east-west mobility. That is understood. There is also a need to ensure that nothing arises that would allow anyone to believe that they have been placed at an undue disadvantage in relation to others in their jurisdiction.
Many North/South mobility issues apply equally to those moving from east to west. Some who move between east and west, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, also seek to move between North and South. Useful work can be done that is not detrimental to anyone, and which contributes to the wider benefits for those moving between east and west.

Ms Carmel Hanna: How can the proposals on cross-border arrangements that are contained in the acute hospitals review group report be implemented, following their consideration by the North/South Ministerial Council?

Mr Mark Durkan: Cross-border work has already been carried out. The Hayes Report, and many of the responses to it, have identified such co-operation as a relevant issue. Cross-border work has included that between health boards in the border area under the Co- operation and Working Together (CAWT) programme.
Given that the review of acute hospital services is under consultation and that proposals are still to emerge, it would be wrong to specify what might happen on a cross-border level. At present, no more can be settled in regard to that issue than in relation to any other aspect of the acute hospitals review that arises in one jurisdiction. We are using the facilities of the North/South Ministerial Council to enhance co-operation and co- ordination to address those issues in a meaningful way. Therefore the cross-border issues will not be disregarded in the development of the review of acute hospital services.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The Deputy First Minister mentioned the impact of 11 September attacks and their effect on the tourist industry. The South of Ireland has lost IR£2 million. However, Bord Fáilte Éireann has initiated an effort to help the domestic market. Does the Deputy First Minister intend to encourage his Departments to initiate an effort in Northern Ireland so that the tourism industry can be stimulated between now and 31 March 2002?

Mr Mark Durkan: Tourism Ireland Ltd, which is a limited company operating on a North/South basis, is taking the lead in the marketing campaign for tourism on the whole island. It has been active, and not only since 11 September, in dealing with issues that have arisen from the global economic downturn.
The North/South Ministerial Council heard exchanges of views on tourism issues from relevant Ministers, not only on global marketing but on the need to stimulate more tourist activity in markets closer to home. We anticipate positive developments, based on undertakings made at the meeting.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Deputy First Minister will have noted that the Department for Employment and Learning’s November 2001 ‘Labour Market Bulletin’ identifies more than 9,000 workers who commute cross-border from the North to the South. Will the consultation process take account of the unfair situation in which those workers who live in the North and work in the South pay tax in both jurisdictions, which sometimes amounts to IR£2,000 per year?

Mr Mark Durkan: There will be a full consultation process, and the document will be made available to the public. Anyone with an interest can follow the process and make submissions accordingly. The steering group that carried out the study will stay in place so that no loss of focus or interest in the consultation stage will occur. The consultation exercise should be amenable to anyone with direct experience of the issues. It should be remembered that the exercise was set up as a Northern Administration initiative, and the Southern Administration then agreed to participate through the North/South Ministerial Council. We want to follow it through so that those obstacles to mobility are dealt with in a sensible and sensitive way.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Would the Deputy First Minister consider it useful for mechanisms to be put in place to give the Assembly Committees an opportunity to have an input into, and to review in greater detail, decisions reached at North/South Ministerial Council meetings?

Mr Mark Durkan: All decisions made by the North/South Ministerial Council are by agreement. First, both Administrations must agree that proposals will be agreed by the North/South Ministerial Council. Any issues that arise in North/South Ministerial Council meetings or at the British-Irish Council are within the work programme of the respective Northern Ireland Departments, and the relevant departmental Committees are free to put forward their views.
Many of the issues addressed at the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council were views expressed by departmental Committees. The views represented by Ministers and Departments are views that have been aired in the Assembly and in Committees. As I have already said, in the British-Irish Council I made reference to views expressed in the Assembly. On other issues people can refer to views expressed at Committees. I do not see any underlying problem to the Member’s question.

Mr Derek Hussey: I thank the Deputy First Minister for his statement. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a brief comment and then ask a question. The Minister’s statement mentioned the health sector’s consideration of the report of the acute hospitals review group. At least four Members from the two communities would issue a health warning on that. The Minister’s statement described the health sector’s initiative to consider the report of the acute hospitals review group in view of its suggestion about the potential for developing existing cross-border arrangements. It is a pity that Hayes did not totally examine that matter when he came to his conclusions about hospital provision in the south-west.
The statement also deals with work done in the agriculture sector to limit the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Will the Deputy First Minister advise the House what actions have been taken in the North/South Ministerial Council’s agriculture sector to control the spread of animal disease?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am sure that relevant others will note the observations and comments in the first part of Mr Hussey’s question. It is not for me to answer on the implications of the review of acute hospital services. However, regardless of how Members feel that the cross-border dimension was treated in the Hayes Report, the North/South Ministerial Council offers a relevant channel through which we can look at that, now that the review is the subject of further consultation.
My statement covers some of the developments that are taking place in agriculture. It says that we are moving to ensure that there are strong and effective controls in place to deal with any episodic outbreaks that may occur, that agreed and reliable controls can be applied, particularly in relation to animal health, and that people island-wide will have confidence in the system. Much of that work will follow from the lessons that were successfully learnt when dealing with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s statement. Will he say whether the areas of North/South co-operation that are not working satisfactorily, such as Irish Lights and transport, were discussed at the Council? What measures are being taken to address their shortcomings?

Mr Mark Durkan: The main focus of the meeting — as well as looking at the report that we agreed to publish — was to look at the operation of the Council and reflect strongly on the successful areas. Some other areas have been underdeveloped, and we will need to consider how to improve their operation and development.
Some of the issues with Irish Lights are not conducive to being dealt with on a North/South basis, and east- west issues are also involved. The Council must look at them again and come up with satisfactory arrangements for dealing with Irish Lights.
With respect to transport, we want to ensure that we act on the opportunities for useful co-operation. At some levels we are seeing effective co-operation in transport through some work that is not unrelated to the common chapter — for instance, the road from Larne right through to the border below Newry. However, we want to make sure that we have a more strategic approach than that. Therefore further proposals will be considered.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas agus roimh an chruinniú. When will the annual report mentioned in the Deputy First Minister’s statement be published?
With regard to the North/South work in the matter of the acute hospitals review group, will Micheál Martin’s 10-year strategy document also be viewed in this context for its North/South potential?
Finally, I ask the Minister to comment on whether these meetings take place too infrequently. Would quarterly meetings not be more practical and effective than six- monthly meetings?

Mr Mark Durkan: I shall answer the Member’s last question first. We know of the obvious political difficulties there have been with the greater frequency and reliability of plenary and sectoral meetings. The most important issue is not the frequency of the meetings, rather that there is substantive and practical business to conduct, both for the plenary itself and in reflecting the work that is going on at sectoral level. The next plenary meeting is planned for May.
More importantly, there are key meetings planned in the various sectoral formats. There is a work programme, which I referred to in my statement, agreed between now and then and, indeed, beyond. Rather than saying that there is one type of meeting that we have to have more of, the issue is that we have to have more of the meetings, in more of the formats, producing more benefits and producing more outcomes that are in everyone’s interest.
The report should be published. If Members have not yet received it, it will not be long in winging its way to their pigeonholes.

Mr Alban Maginness: I note with interest the reference to the national development plan by the Dublin Government. During a recent visit to the north-west, which included Derry, but not only Derry, local people and Derry City Council emphasised the importance of the national development plan and of taking the north-west region into account in the plan.
Was there much discussion about the national development plan? Was there any discussion about including the north-west in particular in the development of transportation links — not just road but also rail links — as this is an important and vital element to the development of that area?

Mr Mark Durkan: The exchange that touched on the national development plan also reflected issues in the Programme for Government. It highlighted the fact that there is a common chapter between the national development plan in the South and the community support framework for Northern Ireland. That offers a facility for us to ensure some more concentrated co-operation in border areas, particularly in developments that would be common to and compatible with both the national development plan and the community support framework. The exchange that took place did not get down to the level of precise detail about transport sectors in particular regions or localities.
Discussions were held to compare issues arising from both strategic plans, and it was agreed that additional targeted work, which could be followed up at the appropriate interdepartmental or sectoral level, would be worthwhile.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agate, a Chin Comhairle. The Deputy First Minister’s statement is welcome, as is the fact that some agriculture issues have been raised. In the context of the cross-border, North/South workings of the Council, are all Departments, North and South, willing to work positively together on the eradication of animal disease? There was evidence of co-operation during the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Will Departments have programmes and strategies in place in order to avoid situations such as we have had in the past? Brucellosis is a serious problem along the Cavan border, and it is essential that the two Governments work together to deliver a solution.

Mr Mark Durkan: Animal health is an important issue that was well registered at the North/ South Ministerial Council meeting, as it has been throughout the agriculture sector. The Council’s discussions focused strongly on the lessons learnt on how to control foot-and-mouth disease. There were also discussions on the need to develop a strategy for the control of animal movements on the island, something which underpins good animal health.
The meeting considered other issues, such as the need to improve the competitive position of the pig sector throughout the island. The progress made by the steering group on cross-border rural development was also noted. More detailed work on those and other agriculture issues will continue to be progressed.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agate, a Chin Comhairle. I would like to address the issue of cross-border mobility. Did the Council discuss qualifications obtained by health professionals on the island as a whole, in the light of the Assembly debate on health and social services staff on 20 November 2001? When will the report be published? Go raibh maith agate.

Mr Mark Durkan: No significant delay is expected in the publication of the report. It is a matter of housekeeping arrangements to ensure that it does not clash with other publications. There are arrangements to have a meaningful consultation, which is why the steering group is being kept in place.
Several mobility issues were identified, including benefits and qualifications. The focus was not on a single sector or group of workers. Issues relating to health workers will be followed through and competently addressed in the health sector. I understand that that work is continuing.

North/South Ministerial Council: Education

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on education held on 28 November 2001 in Dublin.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Dermot Nesbitt and I attended the third meeting on education of the North/South Ministerial Council, which was held in sectoral format in the Berkley Court Hotel, Dublin, on 28 November 2001. The Irish Government were represented by Dr Michael Woods TD, Minister for Education and Science. This statement has been approved by Dermot Nesbitt and is also made on his behalf.
The objectives of the meeting were to consider the outcome of research on cross-border school, youth and teacher exchanges; to review the progress made by the joint working groups, which were established at the first sectoral meeting on 3 February 2000, on underachievement in education, special education needs and teachers’ qualifications; to consider several progress reports from the working groups and agree the priorities for their future work; and to make decisions on some specific actions, on which I shall elaborate later.
First, the Council took note of the scoping study carried out by the Centre for Cross Border Studies in Armagh on the extent and effectiveness of existing school, youth and teacher exchange programmes. The study was commissioned at our meeting in July last year, and the report was completed in the autumn. Its findings and recommendations were considered by interested organisations at a consultative conference, which took place on 18 October in Armagh.
With regard to the report and the outcomes of the conference, the Council agreed that there was a need for suitable processes to improve the ways in which school, youth and teacher exchanges are managed and facilitated and to improve the quality of such exchanges for participants. Therefore, we have agreed in principle to establish an advisory standing committee on school, youth and teacher exchanges with representation from across the various stakeholder groups. At its next meeting, the Council will consider proposals for delivery mechanisms and the composition of the standing committee.
Special education, where the initial focus has been on autism and dyslexia, is an important area of the Council’s work. It took note of the progress report from the joint working group and agreed several specific actions. The Council is keen to promote dialogue and joint working between the professionals involved in that field, particularly at a strategic level. We wish to see the development of specialist programmes for teacher exchanges. In addition, the Council decided to fund the development of videos for the parents of children with autism and dyslexia and CD-ROMs for their teachers. The videos and CD-ROMs will provide advice and guidance for parents and teachers.
The Council also considered a report from the teachers’ superannuation working group, which was set up to examine the feasibility and implications of establishing an agreement for the transfer on a North/South basis of the superannuation benefits of teachers who move between the jurisdictions to live and work. There is potential for agreement on this, and we agreed further work to be undertaken by the working group to progress the matter.
The report from the teachers’ qualifications working group, which was established by the Council to examine a range of issues related to teacher mobility, was also considered. We welcomed the intention of teachers and education professionals, North and South, to collaborate on a range of issues of common interest.
The Council welcomed the greater flexibility in the requirements for proficiency in Irish for teaching posts in the South. It also noted that some steps have been taken that underpin the conclusions of the working group. Those include the Teacher’s Registration Council’s granting general recognition of several qualifications that are awarded by the University of Ulster. The Council also agreed further work to be undertaken by the working group.
In another key area, the Council again noted the report from the literacy and numeracy working group. Literacy and numeracy skills are vital to enable access to the rest of the curriculum. It is important to learn from one another as we develop our respective policies and strategies. We have shared our experiences of the reading recovery programme and the new materials that we have produced to help children improve their mathematics skills. The Council noted that the working group would be considering a recent evaluation of the reading recovery programme published by the University of Strathclyde. The working group will later present to the Council proposals for the development of the programme, together with proposals for the production of interactive training materials for literacy teachers. The Council agreed a further programme for the working group.
Unless children attend school and are encouraged to remain there after the age of 16, they cannot achieve their full potential. The Council considered areas for co-operation to promote attendance and retention, and endorsed the joint working group’s proposals for the dissemination of good practice in that regard. The Council also agreed to run a home/school/community pilot project in the North, aimed at improving parental involvement in their children’s education. The project will draw on the considerable experience of similar programmes that operate in the South, such as those in north Dublin and Dundalk.
Children have a fundamental right to be safe and protected while in school and elsewhere, and to be free from the risk of abuse while in the care of teachers, youth leaders and others. The Council believes that the issue of child protection in these islands must be addressed. It noted the joint working group’s report on the matter. It has agreed that there is a need for confidential mechanisms, North and South, to register those teachers and other education workers who are regarded as being unsuitable to work with children and young people. The Council recognised that the issue is a complex one; it agreed that all jurisdictions must collaborate to reach an effective solution and that appropriate legislation will be required. My Colleague Bairbre de Brún has published a consultation document on legislative proposals to place existing pre-employment checks on a statutory footing. We will also create mechanisms to provide adequate safeguards for our children. Any proposal on our part would require separate but complementary legislation, North and South.
The Council welcomed the availability of over five million euros under measure 5.5 of Peace II to promote school and youth co-operation. Officials in both Departments have been working closely to establish the necessary administrative procedures to enable joint bids under that measure to be made by the two Departments of Education for cross-border projects.
The Council agreed the text of a communiqué that was issued after the meeting, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library. The next meeting of the Council is planned for April 2002. I look forward to returning to the Assembly with a further progress report at that time.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the section of the Minister’s statement on the fundamental right of children to be protected from child abuse. The Minister will be aware of the concerns about young children who were sent to Australia and other countries in the middle of the last century.
I support the Minister’s statement. However, I am concerned about the right of children to be safe and protected from the excesses of their peers. Teachers, youth workers, and others have a right to work in a reasonable environment free from disruptive behaviour. Will future education sector meetings consider the issue of discipline in schools?

Mr Martin McGuinness: At present, discipline does not come under the remit of the education sector of the North/South Ministerial Council. However, the potential for developing that was evident in the Programme for Government.
The education sector will consider school discipline, and steps have already been taken in the North to deal with the issue. The Council understands the pressures and stresses that the difficult issue of discipline creates for teachers. I am willing to explore the issue more fully with our colleagues in the South.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I am particularly interested in the Minister’s comments on the targeted home/school/ community pilot project, which is aimed at improving parental involvement in their children’s education. I appreciate the importance of that. How far advanced are arrangements for the pilot project? What is the scale of the project, where will it operate and what range of schools and community elements is involved?

Mr Martin McGuinness: This is a comparatively new innovation, and it has been led by the South. We have been keenly interested in the work that has been done, both in Dublin and in Dundalk. We are proceeding with haste because the project will bring considerable value to us all. There is an increasing recognition on the island that the connections between home and school, and between community and school, are vital. We have learnt that lesson in the North. It is too early to say what areas will be piloted, but we are seriously considering the matter. The House will be informed of our plans when final decisions have been made.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agate, a Chin Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas seo. I welcome the Minister’s statement, which was one of the more comprehensive North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting statements that have been made in the House. I look forward to progress reports from the advisory standing committee on school, youth and teacher exchanges as work continues in those areas. Can the Minister detail his plans to encourage the promotion of literacy and numeracy in schools both North and South? Are the sectoral meetings held frequently enough to be effective and practical?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Several Members mentioned the frequency of the meetings. It is important to meet regularly to ensure that the work that occurs between meetings — and, in our case, with the working groups that have been established between the two Departments — is progressing to our satisfaction. I am pleased with the work carried out by the working groups.
Everybody knows that literacy and numeracy are the keys to the rest of the curriculum and other areas of learning. It is important to consider how North and South can best co-operate to ensure that we learn from each other as we take forward our respective policies and strategies. The literacy and numeracy group recognises the benefits of exchanging documents and other materials relating to the promotion of literacy and numeracy in schools.
The group also recognises the benefits of key personnel, North and South, attending relevant conferences and seminars on existing or new developments in the other jurisdiction. That has already led to the attendance of teachers at key training events, including summer schools. A strategic approach will be considered for future events. Arrangements have been established, North and South, to secure the exchange of materials and the notification of events.
Two initiatives are already operating on a cross-border basis. One is the Pushkin Prizes, which encourage creative writing among young people. It is not only young people who are being encouraged. On Friday, I attended the launch in Derry of an anthology of work by teachers from all over the island. It was most encouraging to see people at the chalk face of education being keenly involved in releasing children’s imagination, and unlocking their own creativity and that of the children.
The other initiative is the Children’s Books Ireland research project, which will provide valuable information on children’s reading habits and will inform future policy decisions. Those two schemes are exciting innovations that can be built on in the future.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his interesting statement, which contained several important points. However, I want to raise a number of concerns. Why have I, as a member of a party outside the Executive and as a member of the Education Committee, received the information on the statement only today? That is despite the fact that such subjects as underachievement and special educational needs have been included in our work programme. I have mentioned such overlapping previously. Has any consideration been given to creating a system that would facilitate more frequent communication between the Council and Assembly Committees?

Mr Speaker: Before I call on the Minister to respond, I must point out that there is a procedural issue involved. It would be improper for the Minister to make statements to Committees on the outcome of North/South Ministerial plenary meetings or other meetings before bringing them to the House. Of course, the Minister may choose subsequently —

Mrs Eileen Bell: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister may choose subsequently to engage in discussion with the relevant Committee — any Minister may do so. Nonetheless, I must say that it is important that Ministers do the House the courtesy of making statements in the House. The Minister is doing that, as his Colleagues have done. It would not be proper to make the statements elsewhere — in Committee or outside the House. The House must appreciate what Ministers are doing.
I will, of course, ask the Minister whether he wishes to respond.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am sorry if I put the question in the wrong way.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Speaker has explained the dilemma faced by all Ministers. The mechanism was agreed and has been established for some time. We have a duty to ensure that we go through the proper mechanisms by informing the Executive and the House. Any problems should be explored in the round by all of us.

Mrs Joan Carson: Regarding special education, the Minister said that the Council "decided to fund the development of videos for the parents". Who will develop those videos, and how will they be distributed?
Subsequently, he said that "We have shared our experiences of the reading recovery programme". Are those the experiences of Ministers, teachers or civil servants?
The Minister referred to new materials that have been produced. Are copies of those materials readily available to teachers in Northern Ireland, and are they compatible with the Northern Ireland curriculum?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I thank the Member for those three questions.
It is vital that we provide as much information as possible to parents and teachers, and the videos and CD-ROMs will be important aids in doing that. The special educational needs working parties have a duty to provide us with progress reports on their work. In many ways, we depend on receiving that information before decisions can be taken.
We must all share details of good practice, and North and South must learn from each other. The establishment of the working parties has been an important development. They have done much good work, building on the good work done by officials from both Departments of Education long before the Good Friday Agreement. We are learning all the time, and we are keen to see that the working parties produce materials that are consistent with the education that we provide, in the South as well as in the North.

Mr Joe Byrne: I congratulate the Minister on the comprehensive nature of the report on North/South education co-operation, particularly in those areas that have caused teachers great frustration for many years. I welcome the five million euros from the EU Peace II programme for the promotion of school and youth co-operation. I encourage the Minister to increase co-operation on youth exchanges on a North/South basis. Does he agree that that co-operation could help to improve community relations, particularly among young people on the island of Ireland?

Mr Martin McGuinness: A formal call for projects that might avail of the money announced will be made in the new year. Allowing time for completion of the application and selection process, it is anticipated that the funding should be available to the successful projects before the end of March 2002. The sum of 5·3 million euros is a considerable amount of money. The Department wants people to come forward with innovative schemes and approaches to build on the good work that has been done recently.
Members know that since the Good Friday Agreement, in particular, more people have been travelling between the North and the South. That is vital and valuable. It makes a worthwhile contribution to increasing pupils’ and teachers’ understanding of important issues.
Members know that many of these different contacts were conducted on a one-to-one basis, and the good work of bodies such as Co-operation Ireland made an immense contribution to increasing understanding. However, as the Council has established an advisory standing committee on school, youth and teacher exchanges, we can look forward to a much more cohesive and co-ordinated approach to the work. It is exciting, and the atmosphere is conducive to our work. This work will benefit community relations, both in the North and throughout the island of Ireland, and that is essential. There are clear and encouraging signals that educationalists of all descriptions — North and South — appreciate the importance of movement between the northern and southern jurisdictions and the formulation of schemes that can bring people together.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agate, a Chin Comhairle. As my Colleague said, the statement is comprehensive and detailed. In its future programme, the Council will undertake important work that relates to education in both parts of Ireland. Child protection and special education are of particular interest to all Members, especially the Committee for Education. The cross-border group’s study is a powerful piece of research that will benefit everyone. What was the main issue to emerge from it?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Child protection is vitally important. Minister Woods and I accept the need for additional measures to enhance the already stringent mechanisms which keep track of individuals who may be unsuitable for involvement in any aspect of education.
We are moving steadily to ensure that we deal with this. At the same time, we must bear in mind the fact that this is a complex and sensitive matter concerning people’s rights. We have a responsibility to ensure that we deal with it in a sensible way.
12.00
Employing authorities are required to carry out a criminal records check before making an offer of employment. That is vital, and it must be applied to all who are involved in children’s education or who have substantial access to children, whether they are volunteers or prospective school staff. The Department also carries out a check of List 99 when a teacher is to be included on a payroll for the first time. We are trying to put a mechanism in place that will allow us to track people all over the island. The system should also recognise the importance of contact with England, Scotland and Wales. I also suggest that we establish contact with education authorities further afield, given some of the recent cases on the European mainland.
It is vital that we move in a sensible way and implement the optimum child protection measures. When the work is complete, I am satisfied that we will have achieved the optimum arrangements to secure the protection of our children.

Mr Alban Maginness: I welcome the Minister’s comprehensive statement. I noted with particular interest the report of the teachers’ qualifications working group, which was established by the North/South Ministerial Council to examine a range of issues relating to teacher mobility. Progress is being made, which is very helpful. However, it does not go far enough on this small island, where there is a need for teacher mobility. The Republic of Ireland also needs additional teachers, so is it not absurd that we have not achieved full and mutual recognition of teachers’ qualifications on both sides of the border? Will the Minister set a target for achieving that objective? It stretches the credulity of many that teacher qualifications are not fully recognised on both sides of the border.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Under European Union Directives, we have already gone a long way towards mutual recognition of qualifications. The South accepts graduates from certain teacher training courses here. It will be useful to see if it is practicable to extend this further. The key issues are the quality of the training provided and the competence of teachers.
We must remember that this work is all new. The working groups were established only recently and because of the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement challenges us all about ending division on the island of Ireland. In education, that includes the difficulties that teachers face, both North and South. We have a duty and a responsibility to make life easier for teachers and to ensure maximum mobility across the island. We and the working groups are challenged to do that. I am very confident that the Member’s concerns about teachers’ qualifications and the mobility of teachers can be resolved through the good work of these groups.

Mr Billy Bell: I thank the Minister for his report. Can he say how much more flexibility now exists as regards Irish language proficiency requirements for teaching posts in the Irish Republic? Is there flexibility on a range of teaching subjects, or for specific posts only?
In response to a question for oral answer on 25 September 2000, the Minister gave a commitment to provide the Committee for Education with a summary of the issues discussed at each education sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. Will he fulfil that commitment, and when will the Committee for Education receive that information?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Member’s second question relates to a point made by Mrs E Bell. I wish to advise the House that, like all Ministers who attend North/ South Ministerial Council meetings, I am bound by the rules that have been established by the Executive and the Assembly. In following those procedures, I am more than willing to ensure that, after we have reported to the House, the Committee for Education receives as full a report as possible on the business that was conducted at a sectoral meeting.
The requirement for proficiency in the Irish language is now limited to teachers in primary schools and secondary level teachers in Gaeltacht schools, or teachers who are required to teach through the medium of Irish. In addition, individuals are now afforded a five-year period in which to satisfy the requirement for proficiency in Irish and, of course, the differential rates of pay will end, pending the acquisition of a certificate. The authorities in the South are addressing this matter, and we are keen to ensure that every encouragement is given to ensure a proper mobility of teachers between North and South.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also welcome the Minister’s statement. I am heartened that he has mentioned children’s right to be free from the risk of abuse while in schools or in teachers’ care. What impact will the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s proposed Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill have on the education sector?

Mr Martin McGuinness: My officials have worked closely with Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety officials on the proposals for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill, and consultation is ongoing. The comprehensive proposals are intended to cover those who work with children, including teachers and others employed in education. The main proposal is to establish a statutory list of people who are unsuitable to work with children. As far as employees in education are concerned, that will not dispense with the need to carry out a criminal records check on each teacher or employee. As indicated in the consultation paper, the Bill will create a broad equivalent to the Protection of Children Act 1999 and part 7 of the Care Standards Act 2000 in England and Wales. Through the Bill, and mirroring the approach adopted in the Protection of Children Act 1999, the Department of Education proposes amending the regulatory powers contained in the Department’s primary legislation to allow the Department to draw up regulations to strengthen specific safeguards in the education sector where appropriate. The drafting of any such regulations will involve separate consultation in due course.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his positive report, which we welcome. We are pleased to note the progress on the various joint working groups, particularly those dealing with autism, literacy and numeracy, and the teachers’ superannuation working group, which I trust will focus on the important issue not only of cross-border qualifications, but of benefits harmonisation. Can the Minister elaborate on the purpose of the superannuation working group and the options that it is considering?

Mr Martin McGuinness: At present a teacher moving to take up a job in either the North or the South cannot add his previous service to his new employment for the purpose of calculating pension benefits. This is an obstacle to mobility, and its removal would benefit all teachers, North and South.
The options being considered revolve around the central difficulties that many teachers face. In examining the possible alternatives the working group has indicated that it aims to ensure that teachers moving between the jurisdictions, with the consequent transfer of accrued pension rights, will be awarded benefits in the receiving scheme broadly equivalent in value to the benefits that would have been received in the surrendering scheme. This approach will prove equitable and will address the need to ensure that the arrangements finally agreed are not more favourable in one or other of the jurisdictions otherwise teachers would be encouraged simply to take advantage of the more favourable terms.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and the continuing co-operation between the two Departments. I especially welcome the fact that the Department of Education and Science in Dublin has dedicated measures in the Peace II programme to provide funding for approved projects in support of cross-border schools and youth co-operation. When will this funding be available to the schools and youth projects? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Martin McGuinness: As I said earlier in answer to another question, a formal call for projects will be made in the new year, allowing for projects to complete the application and selection processes. It is anticipated that funding should be available for successful projects before the end of March 2002.

Mr Speaker: That brings to an end questions to the Minister on his North/South Ministerial Council statement.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a matter about the indicative timings shown on the monitors. You will be aware, and will appreciate, that many Members use the monitors to find out when statements will be made or when Assembly business will take place. Having had to undertake duties outside the House this morning, I read the monitor, which indicated that the Minister’s statement would be made shortly after 1.00 pm. Clearly that is not going to happen. I missed the statement and have been unable to ask relevant questions. I ask you to consider the indicative timings that appear on the monitors.

Mr Speaker: There are a number of issues. The question of indicative timings has raised itself again and again. Indicative timings are nothing more than that. They were actually meant to give the Whips — not the Members — some kind of guidance. The difficulty is that people treat them as if they are Holy Writ and imagine that business will operate according to them. If the indicative timings are on paper, business will almost certainly not operate to them — it never does, and that has been increasingly so in recent weeks.
The Member raises the question of matters on the monitors, and I will look into that. If they are being displayed on the monitor in a way that is misleading to Members, that is exceedingly unhelpful and is something that must be looked at.
There are two ways in which ministerial statements can be treated as far as our business is concerned. One is the way in which we have treated them until now, which is that, insofar as possible, they are taken as the first items of business on the day, and there can be up to an hour for questions on them. If there is less, we move onto the next item of business. That can sometimes be difficult for Ministers, because they may find that previous Ministers do not provoke as many questions as were thought, and that they, therefore, have to rush back to the House. Since the outset, the Assembly has operated in that way — the House moves immediately to the next item of business, and ministerial statements are taken first.
There is another way that we could operate; we could give a time in the way that is described by the Member. We could say that a ministerial statement will take place at a convenient time after a particular point on the clock — for example, a convenient time after 1.00 pm. The Member must, however, realise that if a matter is in process at that stage, that matter must then proceed to its conclusion. For example, if the Programme for Government debate today were to start at 12.45 pm, it would then continue for some hours. The first possible convenient time after 1.00 pm would be after Question Time at 4.00 pm. I am not sure whether that would actually convenience the Member more. However, whatever arrangement we have, we must operate to that arrangement, otherwise no one will know where they are.
If it is the case that the monitors are misleading in the way that they have described something, then something must be done about that. I undertake, to the Member and to the House, to look into that matter.

Mr John Dallat: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that there is crucial business running parallel to the functioning of the Assembly, in which Members are expected to participate. I am talking about Committees. You will also be aware that ministerial statements were available this morning and that Members had an opportunity to read them and digest the contents, yet critical, important business relating to constituents could not be asked of the Ministers. That was because the relevant Members — in this case me — were not present during the reading of the statement. Do you accept that that is unfair towards my constituents? They could not have their questions answered.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think anything of the sort. There are matters of common courtesy here. If we expect Ministers to come and do the House the courtesy of making their statements, then we should expect Members to be here if they want to ask a question — at least in some part of the statement. Otherwise, we could have a situation, as happened in another place, where Ministers started to make their statements outside of the House. On those occasions, the Speaker said to the relevant Minister "Fine. If it is made outside of the House you do not need to make it again here. We will take it as read into Hansard and move straight to the questions." However, there is a question of proper courtesy to the House.
The Member raises the question of Committees choosing to meet during the time of the plenary. The time of the plenary is absolutely clear. The Standing Orders make it clear that the appropriate time for the plenary is on Monday and Tuesday, and the appropriate time for Committees is Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. If Committees choose to meet during the proper time of the plenary, they are perfectly at liberty to do so — but they cannot then make demands as to how matters will be conducted in the plenary. If the Member is not in a position to ask questions for his constituents because he was elsewhere, that is a matter for himself.
That is not something that I have simply dreamt up. It was fully consulted on through the usual channels. There was a general feeling that too many Members were touring into the Chamber and asking questions which had nothing to do with the statement, and that they had not done the House and the Minister the courtesy of being available for the statement. If the Member on this occasion has been caught in that, then that is unfortunate. I do not say that he is the major offender in respect of those other misdemeanours, but there is no point in my saying that it can be fish for one and flesh for another. All Members must fall under the same rubric.
The Member has done the House the service of bringing the matter not just to the attention of the Business Committee but to the attention of the House as a whole. It is now placed in Hansard for everyone’s edification and education.

Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Clause 1 (Close seasons)

Mr David Ford: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 20, at end insert
"(3A) In section 7D(4), after ‘purposes only’ there shall be inserted ‘and that the taking of such hares would not endanger the hare population in Northern Ireland or any part thereof’."
I believe that copies of the Marshalled List of amendments were not available earlier today in the Rotunda. However, I thank the Business Office for acting speedily to make copies available when that was pointed out.
I would also like to thank Mr Jim Wells, who assisted me in drafting this amendment, and those other Members who have supported it.
When we discussed the Bill a fortnight ago, I referred at some length to the research work done by Dr Karina Dingerkus, whose PhD was on the Irish hare and the threats to it. I thought that in some senses the matter was then closed, since a number of amendments were tabled and fell on that occasion. I was somewhat surprised shortly afterwards to receive a letter that was sent to the Committee for the Environment and copied to me, from Prof Montgomery, the professor of animal ecology in Queen’s University and the head of the School of Biology and Biochemistry there. It was Prof — then Dr — Montgomery who supervised Dr Dingerkus’s project in 1997.
I will not read the whole letter, though lest the Minister think that I am quoting it unfairly, I will emphasise the fact that a number of points made in it refer to habitat protection, which are outwith the purposes of this Bill. However, Prof Montgomery does say that
"numbers [of hares] have declined with no indication that the population is cyclic",
and that,
"the most recent night-time transects were driven in February and September this year with no indication of recovery in numbers".
This is clearly a matter that not only gave the student that he supervised in 1997 cause for concern, but with which the professor himself remains concerned.
The final paragraph of his letter reads as follows:
"I have no personal axe to grind regarding Irish hare as a quarry species. It is neither widely shot nor coursed. However the population is vulnerable and it is difficult to reconcile the need for conservation measures with permission to take hares for sport."
That is the view of the most appropriately qualified representative of his profession in Northern Ireland — the professor of animal ecology.
This should be taken in conjunction with the ‘Northern Ireland Species Action Plans’, that I referred to last time, which the Minister’s Department has not yet taken action on. It lists one particular responsibility to
"review and, if necessary, increase the level of protection given to the Irish hare in the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985."
Action is due on this by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) and Department of the Environment.
I do not propose to speak on this amendment in as much detail as I did last time, but the position is clear. We have a species action plan for the hare, but the Department is not implementing it. We have heard the professor of animal ecology express concern about any threat to hare numbers. We also have a Minister who has told the Committee on a number of occasions over the last year that as the law currently stands, he cannot refuse to issue a license to take hares for coursing. If that is the situation — if the Minister is genuinely concerned and if his Department proposes to take action as set out in its own species action plan — then the position is clear. The Minister should welcome this amendment with open arms, because it gives him the power to refuse licenses to take hares for coursing until it is established that the species is not under threat. It is as simple as that.
The Minister has said that he has not got the power, and that he therefore cannot respond to concerns expressed by the Committee on numerous occasions in the last year. This amendment gives him that power. It simply makes it clear that no license should be issued to take hares for coursing unless it is established that it would not endanger hare populations in Northern Ireland or any part thereof. I trust, therefore, that since this amendment is assisting the Minister in the concerns that he has expressed to the Committee over a great period of time, he will accept it in the spirit in which it is made. We will then ensure that the Bill is amended in this appropriate way.

Ms Carmel Hanna: As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I want to remind the House that the Committee has, for over 12 months, been questioning and opposing the Department of the Environment’s practice of issuing licenses for the capture of live hares for hare coursing. The Committee continues to have serious concerns about the acknowledged decreasing hare population throughout Northern Ireland. Prof Montgomery’s recent letter to the Committee confirms that the hare population is vulnerable and questions the permission to take hares for sport.
However, the amendment to the Bill before the House today was not considered by the Committee during its consideration of the Bill, so as Deputy Chairperson, I cannot speak on the Committee’s views on it. However, as a Member, I fully support the amendment, because it would make it unlawful to net hares for coursing if the taking of hares would endanger the hare population in Northern Ireland or any part thereof.

Mr Sam Foster: I thank Mr Ford and Ms Hanna for their statements on the protection of hares. This subject had a respectable airing at the last meeting. It was discussed fully. I am concerned about the endangered species, but the figures given last time suggested that there is no great danger to hares from the coursing we have at present. The habitat of hares is the biggest problem, not just the coursing. The amendment tabled by Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy and Mr McLaughlin proposes to amend section 7D of The Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928 to ensure that in granting permits to take hares from the wild, the Department is satisfied that this will not endanger the hare population in Northern Ireland or any specific area of it. Even if we were to take this literally, we would not be able to find out how many hares there are in any particular area. We do not believe that there is any scarcity of hares in Northern Ireland as a whole.
This amendment will not make any significant contribution to protecting Irish hares, particularly when the ecological evidence shows that the main factor limiting the hare population is the availability of quality habitat, and that is the issue. This matter received a full airing during the debate at the Consideration Stage of the Bill, and I reiterate the views I expressed then. I am aware of the need to keep the hare population under review and have already detailed to the Assembly the measures I propose to take. These include the development of a species action plan for Irish hares as part of the wider biodiversity process and will include a repeat survey of the numbers of hares here. My Department already knows the approximate number, but we do not have detailed information on hares in any particular part.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
Were this amendment to succeed, my Department would have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that any local population would not be endangered, however that might be defined. That information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. It would also place an unreasonable statutory duty on my Department, with no proven gain to the conservation status of the hare.
Finally, if the amendment is aimed at hare coursing, it will not prevent the practice, since the majority of hares used for coursing here are brought from outside Northern Ireland, and we should note that. These issues were discussed thoroughly by the Assembly after Mr Ford’s and Mrs Bell’s amendments were tabled at Consideration Stage. The Assembly did not accept the need for Mr Ford’s various amendments at that time, and circumstances have not changed since.
Mr Ford mentioned Prof Montgomery. The professor is only stating an opinion. There is no further data on which this opinion depends, and we have nothing definite to confirm what Mr Ford has said. Consequently, I am not prepared to accept the amendment proposed by Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy and Mr McLaughlin to Clause 1 of the Bill.

Mr David Ford: If I was not confused before, I am most certainly confused now. The Minister said this morning that the Department does not believe that there is any great danger to hares. He also said that he does not have detailed information. Does that not prove the point of this amendment? The Department does not know what the situation is, but thinks that everything is OK. We are expected to believe the Minister rather than Prof Montgomery. I am sorry, but if it comes to the detailed ecology of Irish hares, I would sooner believe Prof Montgomery than the Minister and his civil servants.
Indeed, the Minister has just said that Prof Montgomery was only expressing an opinion. I shall repeat a point from Prof Montgomery’s letter that I made earlier:
"the most recent night-time transects were driven in February and September this year with no indication of recovery in numbers".
That is not an opinion. That is a statement of fact, from a person who appears to know significantly more about the issue than the civil servants who so badly advised the Minister. The Minister’s response is proof that the amendment is clearly needed. The House should make the amendment.
Question put,
The Assembly proceeded to a Division.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister does not appear to have Tellers for his side. I understand that the amendment should therefore be made.

Mr Donovan McClelland: We do have Tellers.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 46; Noes 16
Ayes
Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Boyd Douglas, David Ervine, John Fee, David Ford, Oliver Gibson, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Jane Morrice, Maurice Morrow, Conor Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, Mark Robinson, John Tierney, Cedric Wilson.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Billy Bell, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Ivan Davis, Sam Foster, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr Jim Shannon: I welcome the Minister’s declaration on the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill — specifically on partridge shooting — and the changes that he has introduced. I also thank the Committee for its work. The benefits as a result of those changes, which include the extension to the partridge shooting season, will be significant — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. It is difficult to hear Mr Shannon.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister’s extension of the partridge shooting season will bring direct benefits to the countryside. We all know the possible economic benefits — the matter was well debated last week. We welcome the fact that the changes have taken place, and we welcome —

Mr John Tierney: Is this in order?

Mr Donovan McClelland: The motion is that clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and the Speaker indicated that Mr Shannon would be allowed to speak.

Mr Jim Shannon: I asked the Speaker beforehand, and he told me that it was in order. If the Member had asked him, he would have known that before he asked the question.
The amendments that the Minister has made to the Game Preservation (Northern Ireland) Act 1928 will bring tourism and economic benefits to the entire countryside. Jobs will be retained and opportunities will be created. We recognise the contribution that the shooting organisations — which have spoken to each of the Members here — have made to the countryside. We are also aware of the contribution that landowners, farmers and countryside enthusiasts make to the betterment of the countryside. The proposals in the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill do just that. The legislation will bring opportunity and benefits to the countryside.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Programme for Government

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move
That this Assembly endorses the Programme for Government agreed by the Executive.
I am pleased to present, on behalf of the First Minister and the Executive as a whole, this Programme for Government to the Assembly for approval.
Sir Reg Empey and Mr Mallon first presented the Programme for Government to the Assembly in draft form for consideration on 24 September. At the same time, a wider consultation process was launched on our proposed priorities and actions as set out in the draft programme and in our resource allocation plans contained in the draft Budget. We have now reached the end of that period of scrutiny within the Assembly, and of wider consultation, and have revisited the Programme for Government in the light of the points made in the Chamber, in Committees and elsewhere. Last week we presented the Assembly with a revised Programme for Government for its approval. Today provides an opportunity for the Assembly to debate and endorse this programme.
I want to focus on the importance of the consultation to the development of the Programme for Government, on the work that the programme sets for us and on the role of the programme. Before I do that, however, it would be helpful to Members for me to explain how the Programme for Government has evolved and developed since we presented the first draft programme to the Assembly in October 2000.
In this, the second year of the Programme for Government, we have been working to develop our approach to planning. We have defined clearly the policy issues that face us and focused our public services agreements on outputs and outcomes. We are in the process of identifying the actions required to deliver these outcomes in new service delivery agreements. Each Department should by now have provided a draft service delivery agreement to its Committee for consideration. We are keen to have the views of the Committees on the progress made to date and on areas for improvement.
Within the programme, we have also refined our priorities. Following last year’s consultation we have, for example, given a much better focus to social matters, including that of the treatment of older people. The issue of housing and its important contribution receives a more significant description in this text. Of even greater significance, we have started work to tackle the issue of community division, seeking to integrate this more clearly into our process, preparing for the outcome of our review on community relations.
The Programme for Government cannot be, and is not, developed in a vacuum. Its development is influenced by a wide range of factors, including many that lie beyond the control of the devolved Administration. The Programme for Government sets out how we will work to make a difference to society. However, the priorities and policies it contains are shaped by the society and the world in which we live. They reflect, for example, the current economic conditions we face.
Over recent years our economic performance as a region has been strong, with several key indicators consistently performing well. Our employment growth, for example, has been at a much faster rate than Scotland and Wales, and we were outperformed only by London and the south-east. We have seen a 35·7% increase in manufacturing output over the last six years, compared with a UK average of 4·1%, and a dramatic improvement of 36% in labour productivity.
A key challenge for the Executive will be to build on those successes, and the Programme for Government restates our commitment to securing a competitive and sustainable economy.
The events of 11 September and their aftermath present a real challenge. The severity and duration of their impact on the global economy is still uncertain. However, although some impact has already been felt in the aviation and tourism industries, there is evidence that Northern Ireland should be able to weather an economic downturn. The relative importance of the public sector and, in particular, the buoyancy of the local labour market should stand us in good stead. In delivering the Programme for Government, the Executive will work in partnership with business and the trade unions to ensure that the prospects for growth are realised.
Economic factors influence, and are influenced by, social conditions. Too many people depend on benefits. For example, almost 18% of children under 16 years of age live in homes that are in receipt of income support. Our health record is not good either. Our life expectancy compares unfavourably with the European average, and there are huge differences in health status between the best off and worst off. It is vital that our priorities and policies respond to those social conditions.
The development of the Programme for Government will also be influenced by another important factor — the work that is under way in the Treasury in preparation for the spending review in 2002. That is the next major spending review, which will set out our expenditure limits for the three years from April 2003.
Turning to the consultation process, a key piece of feedback that we received from the experience of developing the first Programme for Government last year was that more needed to be done to encourage and facilitate engagement in the process. That includes engagement with the Assembly, with our social partners and with the public. Engagement happens only if people believe that it is a two-way process, and that their views and suggestions will be listened to and considered. These days much is heard about "consultation fatigue", and many consultation exercises are under way. However, it is important that we in Government hear not only the views of those involved in the delivery of public services but also the views of the public who receive and depend on those services. It is important that the views of people help the Executive and the Assembly to make a difference, and that all responses are considered carefully.
I reassure Members and others that the Executive take their views and suggestions seriously, and that in turn they influence our thinking. The Programme for Government is a single document on which the Executive consult. It is significant because it is the context within which all other public policies are developed and implemented. It is well worth engaging with the Executive on its development, and we are ready to listen and respond.
With that in mind, we made several changes to our consultation arrangements this year to facilitate a wider debate on our plans and priorities, and on the resource allocations that are required to support them. We began the process as long ago as June, when we presented the Executive’s position report on the Programme for Government and the Budget to the Assembly. That drew out many of the main features of the programme and its resource implications and equality aspects. It provided a structured starting point for discussions in the Assembly and beyond. We built on that during the consultation period. As well as circulating the draft Programme for Government widely, we organised a series of seminars that allowed for debate on the draft programme and the draft Budget. That included events in Armagh, Antrim and Derry that involved local councils and their social partners. We were also represented at an event arranged by organisations representing older people to consider the draft programme. Those seminars provided us with an opportunity to discuss and listen to views on the equality aspects of the Programme for Government and on our approach to assessing the equality impact of the policies that are set out in it.
We also received detailed and constructive responses from Assembly Committees and from many organisations and individuals. We had the opportunity to listen to the views of Members in the debate that took place on 13 November. Together, those contributions helped to shape the programme that we have presented to the Assembly for approval.
Of course, it has not been possible to include every suggestion that we received. Many proposals that were put forward during the consultation will require further, more detailed thought. Some have significant resource implications. However, I reassure all those who contributed to the process that the shelf life of their responses goes beyond the closing date for the consultation. The ideas and suggestions in those responses must be considered by Ministers and their Departments to ensure that the future development of the programme and the policies that it contains are well informed.
Consultation means hearing what people agree with, as much as hearing what they disagree with or would like to see more of. The Executive were pleased with the level of support — in the Assembly and in the wider public — for their priorities and sub-priorities. We also welcome the support for our work in developing public service agreements and setting targets, and for our commitment to reporting publicly each year on progress towards implementing our Programme for Government commitments.
The Executive have also considered areas in which it was felt that we could do better. We have set out more clearly the steps that we will take to support older people. A key concern that emerged through the consultation was that we should do more to support older people, including the provision of free nursing care. We have now been able to respond positively, and, as I explained in the Budget statement, the programme has now been changed to include a commitment to introducing free nursing care for the residents of nursing homes from October 2002.
The programme also commits us to providing many more community care packages than we had planned in September. The Executive will now deliver an additional 1,000 fully funded community care packages, targeted mainly at older people. Those packages will not only provide support for some of those most in need, but also, in many cases, help to obviate the need for hospital treatment. In other cases, they will allow people to return home from hospital much earlier.
The programme also restates our intention to modernise and improve hospital and primary care services. It commits us to new measures that will deliver better health and social care. Since September, we have considered, in the light of the consultation, what more we might do to improve services for those suffering from cancer, heart disease and renal failure. The Programme for Government now commits us to improving access to cardiac surgery, strengthening treatment processes for cancer sufferers and providing additional dialysis sessions for those with renal failure.
The Executive have also set out more clearly how the new agency, Invest Northern Ireland, which will be established in April 2002, will help deliver our goal of promoting entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity. We have highlighted new actions to improve our energy infrastructure.
I have outlined the main changes made since September. We must also remember that the Programme for Government contains many other important commitments that demonstrate our determination to work together to identify and develop approaches that respond to local needs. The programme, once approved, will commit us to delivering in many areas that fundamentally affect the lives of people in Northern Ireland. It commits us, for example, to appointing a commissioner for children by next June and developing a comprehensive 10-year strategy for children and young people.
It confirms new action that we shall take to renew disadvantaged neighbourhoods and build community participation. That action includes a new regeneration initiative under URBAN II, which will be targeted at inner north Belfast. An additional 1,500 volunteers will be recruited through the active community initiative.
The Programme for Government also sets out our commitment to put in place a cross-departmental strategy during 2002 that can effectively promote improved community relations. We have recently taken the initiative in north Belfast and we shall continue our efforts to improve community relations and tackle our society’s divisions. We must also recognise that community relations policy must encompass good relations between all communities, including the growing ethnic minority community.
The programme underlines our commitment to targeting social need and promoting equality of opportunity. The new targeting social need (New TSN) policy aims to tackle social need and social exclusion. It applies to a range of policies and programmes across all Departments and throughout the Programme for Government. We have published New TSN action plans that show how Departments are redirecting efforts and available resources to those in greatest need. Those plans are currently being updated. The programme contains a specific commitment to ensure that the plans are fully implemented and that annual progress reports are published.
The programme also highlights the core principles and values of equality of opportunity and human rights, which are fundamental to our work. We remain committed to promoting equality and human rights through strong legislation, as well as through effective public policies and strategies. We are determined that no section of our community should feel excluded.
The programme commits us to implementing new actions that will provide good health and improved services for those who need treatment and care. In light of the Hayes report, that work will include development of our plans for a modern acute hospital service that meets local people’s needs.
The programme commits us to introducing proposals by next September on the future structure of post-primary education. Those proposals will be shaped by the current consultation on the Burns report. The programme also sets out important commitments on underachieving schools, literacy and numeracy, and the introduction of a citizenship programme. It confirms our plans to extend third-level education, to provide new student support measures, to implement a new basic skills strategy and to provide additional help for the unemployed.
We have also included important commitments that will preserve cultural and information resources, and make them available to the widest possible audience. Those include the commitment to complete the electronic libraries project, which will link every public library to the Internet and open them up as electronic and information centres. The measure will ensure that people who do not have that technology at home are not disadvantaged.
We are committed to completing all parts of the trans-European network from Larne to the border south of Newry in the coming years and to extending the gas network to make natural gas available to at least half the population of Northern Ireland. We shall also publish a Belfast metropolitan transport plan by December 2002 that will set out a 25-year vision for transport in the Belfast area. We are committed to increasing the number of new businesses and to securing more inward investment by knowledge-based industries.
The ‘Vision for the Future of the Agri-food Industry’ report has been published. The Programme for Government commits us to begin implementing an action plan arising from that report. Recognising the importance of developing all policies in line with our commitment to sustainability, we shall introduce a new sustainable development strategy by next October.
The Programme for Government also sets out important commitments that reflect our desire to become a more outward-looking region. Real progress can now be seen in the work of the North/South institutions and on an east-west basis, as indicated in my earlier statements on the recent North/South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council plenary meetings. We will continue to build relationships on this island and between the two islands, and we will maintain and develop our relationships in Europe and North America. Our new office in Brussels will open shortly, and the Northern Ireland Bureau’s move to new offices in downtown Washington, DC earlier this year has helped to create a defined and more clearly articulated regional voice for the Executive. Both offices will play important roles in delivering our commitment to developing effective links in Europe and effective representation in North America and to presenting a positive international image of Northern Ireland.
Those are just a few of the commitments made by the Executive. It is a challenging work programme, and we are committed to realising it. It will result in real progress in each of the five priority areas identified. However, we also recognise that other factors will influence our progress. It is essential to gain a better understanding of the needs of people here and of the effectiveness of our current policies in addressing those needs. For that reason our work programme for next year includes the completion of initial needs and effectiveness evaluations on our main spending programmes in health, education, training, housing and support for industry. Those major pieces of work will give us a clearer sense of the rationale for Government intervention and of the effectiveness of our policies and programmes. They should help us to develop a sound evidence base for future policy interventions. The work will also assist in pressing our case for a fair allocation of resources to Northern Ireland based on need.
The work programme for the year ahead is important, but so too is the process of refinement and development of the Programme for Government, which will continue year on year. In the coming year we must use the Programme for Government as a programming tool for the entire Executive. In one document we have a clear road map of the challenges we face, together with all the key policy areas. Such policies as need to work together to achieve sub-priorities and real change have been brigaded carefully. We need to improve only the means whereby Departments and agencies can work together across their boundaries to deliver those priorities and sub-priorities more effectively.
Departments working in isolation cannot pursue the work programme I have outlined. Members have frequently referred to the problem of a silo mentality, in which we can all too easily become trapped. Unless we have a clear description of the related policies and can see how we link together to achieve wider objectives, it is difficult not to be caught in a silo. The challenge is not only for Ministers but for everyone in the Assembly, and it can only be met head-on if we have a wider vision of why we are in Government and what we want to achieve. The Programme for Government can give that wider vision.
Systems must be set up to allow policy issues to be examined from the perspective of the Programme for Government as well as on a departmental basis. The exact mechanisms are under consideration. At official level, several interdepartmental groups work across those boundaries and seek to take a broader view. For example, the task force on the long-term unemployed, under Dr Seán Farren, seeks to draw together a wide range of policy issues from childcare to transport to social security, so that a real impact can be made on those who are caught in long-term unemployment.
We will also establish a new interdepartmental steering group, to be chaired by Peter Robinson as Minister for Regional Development, to oversee progress on the regional development strategy and to ensure that the implementation of the key cross-cutting strategy is managed and monitored in a co-ordinated way.
The evidence shows that we will be most effective only if we take the broader view. A Department can do excellent work, but unless we have support for all aspects, we cannot make the real change that we want.
We will drive the change from the top by developing at ministerial level Executive sub-committees that can provide leadership and strategic direction to ensure a cross-cutting approach to policy development. That approach has been effective in the ministerial group on drug and alcohol misuse, but we need to extend and formalise the range of policy issues on which there is joint work at Executive level.
In the next few months, therefore, we will work to ensure that we have a programming process that facilitates the development of a more effective approach. We want to see whether, for example, we can start to focus on clearer sets of policy priorities and outcomes that can help us to give expression to the vision that is set out in the document. The task is a complex one, and we realise that the process will take some time to develop. The need to learn to walk before we run was very much in our thoughts as we built the Programme for Government. We have developed the document further, and we will, with the assistance of the Assembly and its Committees, continue the development process.
I note that there is an amendment to the motion that invites the Assembly to not approve the Programme for Government. I am disappointed that such an amendment was considered necessary at the end of such a lengthy consultation process.
The Executive are clear that tackling division and inequality is central to their work, and I referred to those issues in my statement, in respect of several aspects of the programme. They devoted a section of the programme entitled ‘Growing as a Community’ to address that range of issues. We are clear that division and inequality will not be eliminated in one year or in one Programme for Government. However, we are putting in place the necessary framework to tackle those issues on a long-term and sustainable basis through actions that include the development and harmonisation of anti-discrimination legislation, cross-departmental strategies to tackle gender and racial inequalities and the current review of community relations policies.
Divisions continue in our society as evidenced by the Holy Cross situation and other recent incidents. The Executive have tackled manifestations of these problems, for example, through an initiative that was specifically targeted at north Belfast, but they are also tackling the cause of the problems. The programme stresses
"the need to support the capacity of local communities to deal with matters of dispute and division including the proliferation of sectarian graffiti, unauthorised flag flying, the erection of memorials and other issues that can lead to community tensions."
However, to successfully address these issues we must work together across Departments and across boundaries.
In the debate on the Programme for Government of 13 November, Mr Ford, who has tabled the amendment, welcomed the fact that the Executive had addressed some of the concerns about community relations and tackling divisions that were raised in earlier debates. He also welcomed the fact that progress had been made. He even tried to take credit for the establishment of a cross- departmental group. Unfortunately, in the subsequent debate, no real practical suggestions came from that source to match his party’s rhetoric, but we look forward to such constructive input to the review of community relations policy as is covered in the Programme for Government.
The management guru, Peter Drucker, once said that
"Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work."
The Executive are committed to ensuring that their plans, as set out in the Programme for Government, are not merely good intentions. As an Administration, we all have much hard work to do to ensure that our policies and programmes address people’s needs. The Assembly has a key contribution to make towards ensuring that that hard work is done. We are ready for the hard work that is needed, and we look forward to working with the Assembly and our social partners in that task.
I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I intend to continue with the debate until 2.30 pm, break for Question Time, and resume at 4.00 pm.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I beg to move amendment No 1: Delete all after "Assembly" and insert:
"declines to approve the Northern Ireland Executive Programme for Government because it fails to adequately address the Executive’s stated priorities, does not tackle the deep divisions and inequalities in this society and therefore does not deliver the new beginning envisioned by the Good Friday Agreement."
I move the amendment, more in sorrow than in anger because the Alliance Party feels that it must clearly state its concerns about the Programme for Government that has been agreed by the Executive. Steps have been taken but, unfortunately, the sad fact is that Northern Ireland society continues to be defined by its deep divisions and inequalities. This programme, like its predecessor, compares favourably with those that have come forward from the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Cabinet. However, thankfully, those societies do not have the problems that permeate Northern Ireland. Therefore, despite the Executive’s constructive proposals on social, economic and environmental issues, it is progress in healing our divisions and reducing inequalities that will be the ultimate test of the success or failure of the Executive.
To be credible, the Executive need to place the tackling of divisions and inequalities, as the Minister stated, at the heart of the programme. However, they fail in that. Instead, promoting equality of opportunity and human rights, and improving community relations and tackling the divisions in society are stated only as sub-priorities, under the heading ‘Growing as a Community’. This is not good enough and it is the reason for the Alliance Party’s amendment.
The Executive have made the task of addressing community disputes in north Belfast a priority. However, this is fire fighting rather than fire prevention. It costs much more, in time and resources, to address the violent manifestations of our problems than to address them before they flare up. It is not only in the area of health that prevention is better than cure. One of the paradoxes of the peace process is that society is more segregated today than at any other time in history. Segregation can be most clearly seen in the area of housing, both public and private.
Resolute action to create and maintain mixed workforces through fair employment legislation has had significant success. It is now time to address how we live. No one is suggesting that people should be forced to live in certain areas. Mixed housing should be proactively encouraged, yet it is not even mentioned in the programme.
Attention must turn to the barriers to mixed housing which begin with the control that paramilitaries still have over certain areas. The painting of kerbstones; murals that glorify the deeds of paramilitary organisations, and the illegal erection of flags, turn too many areas into ghettos. The message being sent is that such areas are the exclusive preserve of one or other side rather than being common civic spaces. People get the message, directly or indirectly, that they are not welcome in them. That occurs throughout the year, not just at sensitive times, and is felt not just by the perceived minority, but also by the perceived majority in these areas. This can be clearly seen in my area of North Down, yet everyone feels powerless to respond because the system does not work. It is therefore incumbent on the Executive to be proactive in that rather than merely pay lip service to the problem. My Colleague Kieran McCarthy has proposed having an Executive inter-agency working group, if that has not yet begun. The Department for Social Development should be mandated to work with the Housing Executive to pilot the creation and maintenance of mixed housing estates.
For historical reasons, it has become the norm for children to be educated in segregated schools. Despite the fact that integrated education is the norm in almost every other western European democracy, it is still regarded only as a peripheral alternative here. Only 4% of children here attend integrated schools, and it is a constant battle to get new schools built and existing schools to transform. A recent report by the Mixed Marriage Association stated that 68% of couples in mixed marriages would prefer integrated education. Where do their children go?
Children have a human right to be educated in mixed schools, but the Executive are only tinkering around the edges rather than actively encouraging such schools. Indeed, as education resources are already overstretched, surely it makes sense to encourage a sharing of built resources and the freeing up resources for investment in teachers and pupils.
There was talk of the need to recognise that a community relations policy must encompass good relations between all communities including our growing ethnic minority community. Those are great words, but past and present practice has been to assume that we are a society of two communities, rather than one community with great multicultural diversity and pluralism. That was never so clear as with the Assembly designations, but we await progress on that.
Action on improving community relations has been deferred pending a review, and no specific measures have been proposed. Many of the myths about community relations still prevail today. It is now common for policies to be proofed against all sorts of criteria. Equality-proofing, rural-proofing and TSN-proofing are necessary and welcome. However, the Alliance Party would like to see all Executive and Northern Ireland Office policies proofed for their impact on promoting sharing rather than communal separation, a criterion that could be described as part of the past.
It is also incumbent on the Executive to realise the potential for advancing Northern Ireland as a distinct region in many aspects of work. The more we do that, the more we help to create the notion that all the people of Northern Ireland are working towards a common, rather than a separate, set of objectives.
Unless we begin to address seriously and directly the deep divisions in society, the very survival of the agreement will be under threat. We seem to reinforce the notion of a society of two separate but equal communities in an uneasy co-existence requiring constant skilful conflict management. In the absence of a meaningful strategy to improve community relations and promote sharing, it will be all too easy for communities to go their separate ways after a crisis — no doubt with substantial violence. We accept that it will be a long process, but a band-aid approach is not sufficient. We must address problems head-on, make substantial progress a priority and not sweep them under the carpet or treat them as side issues. I agree that we must meet the challenges, but we must meet them first on those substantive issues. We hope that the Executive listen and respond to our well-meaning comments. I support the amendment.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am pleased to contribute to this important debate. I covered most of the key points, including the need for education to be a central priority, in a debate a few weeks ago. I welcome broadly the Programme for Government, but will outline several of my Committee’s outstanding concerns.
Our first concern is that numeracy and literacy targets for 14-year-olds have now been revised downwards in the Department of Education’s public service agreement. The target to be achieved by 2004, for mathematics and English, has been reduced from 75% to 72%. I am sorry that the Minister of Education is not in his place. My Committee has argued that those targets should not be revised downwards, and we are disappointed that the Executive have done so. Too many children leave school with inadequate levels of numeracy and literacy. The targets have now been reduced twice, and that is simply not good enough.
Recently, I wrote to the Minister of Education about the issue. He replied:
"The decision to reduce the targets had been taken on the basis of information from the Year 2000 Key Stage 3 assessments which indicated that, if the trend demonstrated were to continue, we would be unlikely to reach the previously stated target of 75%."
He added:
"We will examine the Key Stage results on an annual basis and if our current assessment proves overly conservative I will be happy to revise the targets again in the light of new evidence."
The purpose of public service agreements is not to set targets for a three-year period and then revise them downwards each year if we are not doing well enough. I believed that the whole purpose of the Programme for Government and public service agreements was to identify the key priorities of the Executive, and to set targets accordingly.
The Budget allocations reflect the priorities in the Programme for Government, and the Department of Education, strongly backed by my Committee, has received substantial funding aimed at meeting this priority — most recently from the Executive programme funds. We are allocating more money to fulfil that key priority, yet targets are being reduced again. If, next year, the 2001 key stage results do not indicate that there has been satisfactory progress, will the targets be reduced for a third time? I will seek an assurance from the relevant Minister that that will not be the case.
My Committee also believes that rather than reduce targets for 2004 as soon as it appears that they will not be achieved, the Department of Education should identify the reasons for the lack of progress and take appropriate action to address the problems.
I want to highlight the commitment in the Programme for Government to continue to invest in the quality of our teachers and principals. My Committee recommended the inclusion in ‘Investing in Education and Skills’ a target to carry out a review into the pay levels, the salary structures, the workload, and the conditions of service for principals, vice-principals and teachers. Unfortunately, it was not included, the stated reason being that it would have been premature to do so, given that discussions on the matter were ongoing. However, my Committee believes that such a target ought to have been included in the Programme for Government because it would have indicated properly our commitment to principals and teachers.
One sentence, with no target or timescale, is not an adequate reflection. Principals and teachers, who are the cornerstone of our education system, feel overworked and undervalued. For a long time, morale and motivation have been extremely low. One teachers’ union has initiated industrial action, and others have indicated their intention to do likewise; therefore it is not premature to include a target to address that long-standing problem. Indeed, a commitment in an important document such as the Programme for Government might well have eased the problem.
The Minister of Education said that he intends to include proposals for the implementation of the Burns Report in next year’s Programme for Government. I welcome that, but it is important to stress that they are proposals and not legislation — I will seek the Minister’s confirmation.
I welcome the launch of a comprehensive review of public administration by spring 2002. That is particularly relevant for education, which received £60 million of public money for administration costs. The Education Committee would like to know the completion date of the review as soon as possible, in order to include it in next year’s Programme for Government.

Mr Joe Byrne: I congratulate the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and, indeed, their predecessors, for conducting such a transparent and wide-ranging consultation process on the formulation of the Programme for Government for 2002-03. As the document shows, the Assembly and its Committees have had the experience of a full year of debates on policies, and it has been an invaluable learning experience. Despite some criticism in the media, the policies outlined in the Programme for Government are evidence that the devolved institutions and locally elected Ministers can deliver stable government and implement measures that shape the social and economic directions of our society.
The current Programme for Government is a development plan for progress, to point us in the right direction. I welcome the objectives outlined in the public service agreement (PSA) of the Department for Regional Development. They will shape the region’s long-term strategic development.
During the years of direct rule, the North’s infrastructure developed on a very uneven basis and was concentrated on the north-east, which led to social exclusion for some parts of the region. Now that we have devolved power, the improvement of Northern Ireland’s infrastructure must take place in a balanced fashion throughout the region, so that urban and rural citizens have equal access to roads, transport and water and sewage services, and the competitiveness of the economy will be enhanced.
I am pleased that the upgrading of several key strategic routes is regarded as a priority. For example, I welcome the Programme for Government’s commitment to allocate £40 million from the Executive programme fund for infrastructure to complete all the parts of the trans-European transport status (TENS) route from Larne to the border, south of Newry. However, I remind the Executive and the Minister for Regional Development that other important TENS routes, such as Dublin to Monaghan and Omagh to Derry, should also be upgraded. The upgrading of these routes is vital in helping to attract inward investment, enabling local firms to expand and enhancing safety for motorists.
It is therefore essential that when the 10-year regional transportation strategy is adopted, it marks a radical departure from what we have experienced to date. All too often, those of us who live west of the Bann have had to make do with totally inadequate roads and a limited public transport system. This has had a detrimental effect on the local economy and the quality of life of rural residents. Therefore, we must invest in a safe, efficient and integrated transportation infrastructure.
The regional transportation strategy must be placed in the context of European Union and North/South transport planning, with particular reference to the Irish Republic’s national development plan and the national spatial strategy. In the Executive, the principles of joined-up government must guide the implementation of the new transportation strategy. The Executive must work collectively to ensure that transportation policy is formulated with reference to economic development and the development of Northern Ireland’s energy and technology infrastructure.
Recently, the Committee for Regional Development held a formal meeting in the Guildhall in Derry and heard strong representations on the transport difficulties of the north-west area. In particular, there was a fully agreed and presented position from Derry City Council, the North-West Region Cross-Border Group — involving Limavady Borough Council, Strabane District Council, Derry City Council and Donegal County Council — and the business community. The position was that capital investment in the TENS roads and the railway system was vital for economic development in the counties of Derry, Tyrone and Donegal. It is extremely important that the regional transportation strategy, being finalised, must be sufficiently determined and developed so that it dovetails smoothly and effectively with the recently agreed regional development strategy.
In relation to the Department for Employment and Learning, I particularly welcome the additional expenditure designed to increase the number of further and higher education places and the target of achieving a total enrolment of 35,000 full-time students in higher education. I also welcome the objective of increasing enrolment in further education colleges by 5% in the key areas of tourism, catering, computing, engineering and construction.
Given that Northern Ireland’s unemployment is above the UK average, and given our high dependence on the public sector, the enhancement of the skills level of the workforce is important in creating a vibrant economy. However, it is also important to ensure that resources are properly targeted and that people such as the long-term unemployed are not exploited. Therefore, I welcome the Minister’s recent decision to close the individual learning account (ILA) scheme, which was open to exploitation, ahead of the planned suspension date. As many adults in the North lack basic literacy and numeracy skills, it is important that we implement a skills programme which encourages lifelong learning, which is properly resourced and which targets those most in need. The ILA system must be primarily promoted and managed because of the net benefit it can bring to client trainees who require up-skilling and personal development.
With reference to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I welcome the targets of achieving growth in export sales and net employment, and also the commitment to attract 75% of all first-time investment projects to new targeting social need (New TSN) areas. The new single economic development agency, Invest Northern Ireland, provides the opportunity for a new approach to attracting inward investment and delivering a more effective range of services to entrepreneurs. To meet this requirement, it is essential that the new agency maintains offices that are geographically spread throughout Northern Ireland, not just primarily located in Belfast.
If the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is to be able to live up to these commitments, it is important that the Department be properly resourced. I am concerned that, given the current economic slowdown, planned expenditure for 2002-03 will decrease by 1·3%. Nevertheless, I am pleased to read that the Executive have given a clear commitment to significantly increase investment should the need, or some particular opportunity, arise.
I also want to take the opportunity to welcome the commitments given in the Programme for Government to complete reviews of promotion and recruitment to senior positions in the Civil Service and Government office accommodation. That will include an examination of the possibility of decentralising Civil Service jobs. Over the past two years, my party has consistently lobbied for the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs. We believe that the Executive should lead by example and relocate entire sections of Departments from Belfast to the main towns. Such a policy would help to achieve more balanced growth beyond the Greater Belfast area and bring government closer to the people.
This is an ambitious and imaginative Programme for Government, geared towards addressing the social and economic damage done by almost three decades of direct rule. It is an example of what can be achieved if we work constructively in the Executive, the Assembly Committees and beyond, and it has given many people the opportunity to make an input. It demonstrates that the Administration listen to the concerns of ordinary people and that they are determined to make a difference.
We have a difficult task, but the 2002-03 Programme for Government — guided by new TSN, the statutory equality legislation and the public service agreements — will build on the progress that has been made in implementing the first Programme for Government. It provides the opportunity to deliver real change through stable, effective and transparent government and create in Northern Ireland a cohesive, inclusive and economically vibrant society.
It is important that our Programme for Government should develop our economy and, over time, tackle the social problems of unemployment and poverty, so that everyone feels that devolution can bring net benefits to individuals and the collective community. I endorse the finalised Programme for Government: we should support it and help to build a better Northern Ireland and a harmonious community.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Sub- priority 8, headed "We will work together to regenerate the rural economy", is the main area of interest for the Committee in the chapter on the economy. One of the main commitments made in that sub-priority is the publication of a plan of action for the strategic development of the agrifood industry. That plan will emanate from the vision group’s report on the industry’s future. That commitment is welcome, especially as several of the vision group’s recommendations are consistent with those that have already been made in the Agriculture Committee’s reports. However, members of the Committee remain deeply concerned that none of the additional funding identified in the Budget has been allocated to the matter. It will be extremely difficult for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to translate a plan into tangible action, especially if the Department recommends a new direction. The Committee has raised that issue in its Budget deliberations and will continue to do so.
Another commitment by which the vision group and others have set great store is the introduction of what is called "rural proofing" as part of general policy implementation. Over a year ago, the Committee welcomed the proposal for rural proofing, but had concerns that it was little more than a concept, rather than a matter for action. According to the current Programme for Government, a ministerial-led group to carry out rural proofing of Government policies should have been established by April 2001.
Sadly, when our Committee met on Friday 8 December, eight months after the target date for setting up that important group, the Minister remained unable to update the Committee on its establishment. Rural proofing has been heralded as being vital to ensure a fair deal for all rural areas. The commitment to rural proofing is reiterated in the document that we are debating today. It must, like the action plan, be progressed urgently from concept to reality if the commitments are to mean anything. Members will be disappointed that that has not been taken on board, but will watch with interest to see how the Executive ensure that all relevant agencies work together, as set out in the third paragraph of section 5.10.
The third paragraph of section 5.11 sets out plans to introduce regulations covering the storage of silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oils, which are the waste products of farming. It is unfortunate that, although the Department of the Environment has already put forward its proposals for regulations, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s bid for Executive programme funds to help to establish a farm waste management scheme was not included in last week’s announcement. Extra money could have provided well-targeted funds to enable farmers to meet their obligations under the new regulations. With farm incomes at such low levels, it is unreasonable to expect farmers to fund major improvements themselves. The Committee reissues its call for close co-operation between the two Departments involved to ensure that there is action proportionate to risk and to take affordability into account.
In the Committee’s written response to the draft Programme for Government, it pointed out that the sub- priority on the rural economy did not mention the sea fisheries fleet or the communities that rely on the fisheries industry. Members who have been taking note of what is happening in Europe must be flabbergasted by the drawing of a dagger that will strike at the very heart of the fishing industry.
My Committee decided that we had better go to Europe, with the co-operation of the three MEPs from Northern Ireland, to talk to Commissioner Fischler. If the figures that we have seen are correct, and if Commissioner Fischler acts according to the proposals, that will mark the end of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. The fishing industry cannot afford to have £1·7 million deducted from its total income.
Those are matters of deep concern. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has the full backing of the Committee on the fisheries issue. She has expressed her happiness that the Committee will be standing with her in her fight to salvage something from the disastrous proposals that are to be put forward in Europe next week.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion. I reject the amendment on the basis that, as the Deputy First Minister said, the matter has been debated considerably. This is the second year of the Programme for Government. The document is moderate in its ambitions, and many measures could be described as being vague or, in some cases, ill-defined.
The Programme for Government has been developed against a fairly difficult background. This is the institutions’ first term, and there have been serious political difficulties in the past couple of years. Therefore, the Programme for Government maps out the way forward, albeit in a moderate way. As other Members have said, it is the result of a great deal of work by the Executive and many of the Committees. There has been a fair amount of consultation on and input into the Programme for Government. The programme has established new priorities in health, education and other areas that are of concern to constituents. Members have raised those concerns on numerous occasions, both inside and outside the Chamber. The programme has already been described as developmental and work in hand.
The year 2002 will be one to watch. The Programme for Government is worthy of the Assembly’s endorsement insofar as it is work in hand. It will be interesting to see how many of the reviews and developing strategies will make an impact. Sub-priority 1 of the section titled "Growing as a Community" describes the strategies that will be introduced in 2002 to bring together the anti- discrimination measures. It also mentions how the Executive propose to deal with gender and racial inequalities, the reviews into the workings and needs of the travelling community and the critical area of the overall complexion and working practices of the Civil Service. I look forward to seeing how those completed studies and strategies will impact in 2002.
Sub-priority 4 of the section titled "Working Together" deals with how the Executive will find new ways to finance public services. I am grateful that the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive will announce the results of the review into public-private partnerships (PPPs) and private finance initiatives (PFIs). I remind the House — and critics outside the Assembly — that the Committee for Finance and Personnel took the lead when it held an inquiry into PPP. The work that we put into that inquiry, in co-operation with the Department of Finance and Personnel, is testimony to the fact that Assembly Members from all parties recognise that PPP is a big issue.
There have been critics outside the Assembly. Even in the past week or two, some people from the trade union movement who did not even bother to participate in the inquiry, despite the fact that it was publicly convened, have been critical. Some parties in the Executive have concerns about PPPs. However, the Committee for Finance and Personnel treated the issue seriously enough to have an inquiry. That inquiry took up much of the Committee’s time and effort. It held sessions here, in Dublin, in London and in Leeds. I look forward to the findings of the review undertaken by the Executive’s working group.
I am concerned about the rates review, which Members are now advised will not conclude until the end of 2001. That means that any action taken will not be implemented until 2003 or 2004. I have never suggested that there are any easy fixes, but it would have been helpful if the rates review had been conducted and completed earlier so that some of the inequalities could have been addressed. However, I welcome the fact that the rates review has been conducted, and I look forward to its recommendations.
I am encouraged by the intention of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and its Minister, to promote greater respect for cultural diversity, et cetera. However, I have heard criticisms levelled at the Minister on what appears to be an emerging partisan approach by his Department to certain political commemorations. I hope that the Minister has taken on board some of the criticisms that were levelled recently — I do not intend to repeat them today. Again, I welcome the intentions in the sections of the document that relate to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I hope that it works out in an equal way in the future.
I echo some of the concerns raised earlier by Danny Kennedy about the public service agreements. It is my understanding that they will, in effect, be binding contracts between the Departments and the wider public. Some of them are ill-defined and rather vague and have again involved slippage. That is a matter for concern.
By and large, I support the Programme for Government, despite the fact that it is a moderate document — I would not say that it is ambitious. However, it is useful and important, and we will have to watch how the strategies and reviews affect the issues that many of us continue to address. I support the Programme for Government, and I reject the amendment. However, I certainly do not reject some of the concerns expressed in the amendment. Others will undoubtedly support the Programme for Government.
I welcome the fact that we have this document — it is work in hand. We will have to use this first term of the Assembly to try to get our systems right, and we are moving in that direction. By the end of term I hope that we will be able to demonstrate to the wider public that these institutions are worth having and that they will have a clear impact, particularly on socially disadvantaged and excluded areas and peoples.

Mr Sam Foster: I find it gratifying that the Chamber is able to debate the second Programme for Government reflecting the benefit of locally elected politicians working together to enhance the standard of living of all of the people in Northern Ireland.
In the previous debate on this Programme for Government, I focused on my Department’s contribution to the first one. Today I wish to highlight some major actions in the 2002-05 Programme for Government that my Department will undertake. Yet again, these actions reflect the importance that the Executive, the Chamber and the public place on environmental issues. Clear evidence of this is the fact that my Department’s funding for 2002-03 has increased by 10% to almost £111 million. Clearly we must continue to take actions that safeguard the environment and contribute to improving the health and well-being of our people.
It is with these objectives in mind that my Department is considering consultation responses on a road safety strategy for the next 10 years. The document sets out in some detail how the various Departments and agencies involved in road safety are seeking to improve our road safety record. It also proposes challenging road casualty reduction targets and a strategy for achieving them. In March next year my Department will publish a strategic plan that will take account of the comments received from the consultation exercise.
Waste management is another major issue that we need to continue to address. Recycling and market development for recovered materials are key elements of the waste management strategy, and my Department will be working closely with the Waste Management Advisory Board on a public awareness campaign to promote both waste minimisation and recycling.
We will also extend the waste and resource action programme in Great Britain to Northern Ireland to assist in creating a stable and efficient market for recycled products. I particularly welcome the Committee for the Environment’s call for economic development agencies to be involved in this. There is a clear need for us to work together on this, and my officials will be working with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and key business sector representatives on the Waste Management Advisory Board to develop the market programme.
I am keen to see openness and transparency in the planning process. For that reason, on 1 November, my Department introduced a number of measures to achieve this as part of a commitment given in the Programme for Government. Some of the key elements of these changes are: letting people know the reasons for a planning decision; making available representations on planning applications, including objections; making available details of consultations with district councils; and enhanced access to the planning application files.
A leaflet that explains the planning process to the public has been produced. These measures significantly enhance the customer focus of Planning Service and should help the public to understand better the importance that the planning process plays in protecting our environment.
My Executive Colleagues and I recognise that the integration of sustainable development principles into society in Northern Ireland presents a challenging agenda. We need to obtain the ideas of as many sectors, groups and individuals as we can, and not just those of Government. For that reason my Department has plans to consult widely, early in the new year, on proposals for a Northern Ireland sustainable development strategy.
I am also pleased that the Executive were able to restore the £2 million of provision for my Department’s resources grant to district councils. That is most welcome. It will avoid the need for a reduction in the grant, and it will ensure that full assistance can be given to the poorest council areas.
I intend to build on the actions that my Department has taken, and those that it intends to take in the coming year, and I look forward to working closely with the Committee for the Environment to take forward the many challenging objectives that have been set in the Programme for Government.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I support the motion and agree with most of the content of the Programme for Government. I would appreciate clarification on a few points, one of which is in relation to the Health Service. Having said that, I welcome the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s commitment to bring about improvements in the Health Service, particularly in primary and acute care, in the coming year. I note that the Department has committed itself to publishing plans by December 2002 for the modernisation of our acute hospital services. We are all well aware of the problems in the Health Service and especially those in relation to acute services. I do not want to rehearse those problems here, but it has to be said that the crisis in acute hospital services is growing. Indeed, many people would pose the question "Why do we have to wait for another year before decisions are taken about that important sector?" While we are waiting, services at many of our local hospitals are being whittled away, and we know that that in turn leads to larger hospitals being unable to cope with the extra pressures that are placed upon them.
Many consultations have been carried out on the future of acute hospital services — the most notable being the recent one carried out by the Hayes review group. That group was both independent and representative, and it made specific recommendations about the way forward. Many people are now fed up with consultations, and the view is that it is time to take decisions about future hospital services.
What does the statement on page 29 of the Programme for Government mean when it says:
"The Executive will shortly be involved in discussions, leading to the issue of a consultation paper which will consider the way forward. We expect to take decisions in the course of 2002 and will take steps in the meantime to maintain safe and effective services at smaller hospitals."?
Are we now being told that the Executive are embarking on a further consultation on acute hospital services? What does that statement mean? Will it result in further delays in implementing a plan or will the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety deliver the long-overdue decisions on the way forward by December 2002, as indicated in the Programme for Government?
I welcome the commitment to the reform of public administration and the development of a plan for the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs. I note that consultation will continue from spring 2002 to November 2002. As a representative of a constituency with high levels of economic deprivation — and most people are aware that the Fermanagh area has lost 1,000 jobs over the last four years — I am in no doubt that the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs can improve the economies of such areas. Constituencies in deprived areas should be given special consideration in the decentralisation programme.
I welcome the work that is to go ahead over the next year, and I look forward to the plans coming to fruition. However, I would like some specific information about relocation. On the foot of the work that they have outlined for next year, do the Executive expect to be able to take decisions about relocating Government jobs at the end of next year, or do they have a later date in mind?

Rev William McCrea: On 13 November, as Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I drew the attention of Members to an important paragraph entitled ‘Promoting sustainable living’ on page 8 of the draft Programme for Government. The Committee for the Environment noted the designation of sustainable development as a key theme, cutting across the five priority areas in the Programme for Government. However, the draft document fell seriously short in reflecting the Executive’s commitment to promoting sustainable living in their priorities and sub-priorities.
I detailed several of the Committee’s recommendations in an attempt to rectify that. Unfortunately, the document before us reflects only a few of those recommendations. For example, on page 69 there is now a reference to being "conscious of environmental issues" in seeking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public service. In the same paragraph it states:
"Working with local government, we will develop and promote good working practices and procedures under Best Value aimed at delivering effective, efficient and quality local services."
If the Minister had been listening to the Committee’s debate, he would have found that it is most anxious to have effective, efficient and quality local services. However, even at this late stage, I again implore the Minister and the Department to agree with the representation that was made by the Committee to implement best value on a voluntary basis and not on the legalistic approach that the Department has indicated. I have the full backing of the Committee to make that request.
An implementation plan to improve public procurement is referred to immediately below the statement:
"In seeking to improve efficiency we shall also be conscious of environment issues set out in paragraph 5.11."
I trust that the implementation plan will fully demonstrate that there is, in practice, a significant commitment to sustainable living by developing environmentally sustainable Government procurement policies across all Departments.
Government action on environmentally sound practices could dramatically impact on the development of markets for recycled and recoverable materials, thus boosting the prospects for the successful implementation of the Northern Ireland waste management strategy.
On page 69 there is a commitment to:
"launch a comprehensive review of public administration by spring 2002."
That is a long-awaited and badly needed statement. I ask that a timetable for the urgent implementation of that review be drawn up and brought before the Assembly for debate as soon as possible.
The Committee for the Environment is currently taking a keen interest in the progress of the development of effective waste management plans to underpin the waste management strategy for Northern Ireland. In the opinion of the Committee, progress on that and on other important areas of the strategy has been too slow. The Committee notes, therefore, the new commitment on page 54 of the Programme for Government that the strategy
"creates opportunities for Northern Ireland to become a leading example of sustainable resources and waste management."
I trust those are not just fine words and phrases, and that action will be taken to deliver on that commitment and to reach an agreement with the waste management advisory board, by June 2002, on a public awareness campaign to increase waste minimisation and recycling.
The Committee notes that on page 48 of the programme the word "sustainable" now describes the business start programmes. I hope that that is met in every sense, through the commitment to achieve 6,000 new sustainable business starts over the period to March 2005.
The Committee is disappointed that the Executive have not improved the reference to the environment in the overview to ‘Securing a Competitive Economy’ on pages 42 and 43. The Committee has suggested a more ambitious approach to the integration of environmental themes into economic policy. In the context of sustainable development, the environment should no longer be viewed as a constraint on economic activity. The environment and sustainable development represent opportunities to support and develop new economic and job creation activities.
On page 43 it is stated that
"We will work to protect and enhance our natural and built environment."
Members of the Committee would agree with those words but would like a clear outline of the action that will be taken by the Department of the Environment to protect and enhance our natural and built environment. There are concerns that our natural and built environment have been under threat on many occasions, and that no action has been taken.
The reference to renewable energy on page 45 could have been widened to take account of sustainable economic development opportunities for new technology, research, development, production and export.
Finally, the Committee notes that the Department of the Environment’s public service agreement target for river pollution is:
"To maintain or improve Year 2000 levels of river water quality (both chemical and biological)."
Why was a more ambitious target not set, bearing in mind the number of instances of serious river pollution over the past year?
I trust that the relevant Ministers will answer these questions.

Mr Fred Cobain: As I said during the debate on the draft Programme for Government last month, the Committee for Social Development is most concerned with two sections — section 2, ‘Growing as a Community’, and section 7, ‘Working Together’. The Committee made representations on those sections.
The foreword to the Programme for Government acknowledges the feedback from Assembly Committees, and suggests that
"This document has been revisited and revised in the light of that feedback."
It continues:
"although we have not been able to respond immediately to the many suggestions made during consultation, we would also like to reassure those who responded that their views and comments will continue to have an influence as the Executive takes forward work to develop the Programme over the months and years ahead."
The Committee for Social Development welcomes that assurance and will watch those developments with interest.
The Committee continues to be content to endorse the priorities and sub-priorities in the two sections that I mentioned earlier and remains broadly satisfied with the associated actions and commitments. However, the latest version of the Programme for Government does little to allay the Committee’s concerns about the precise way in which social need is to be tackled and how the needs of those in poverty will be addressed in practice. No doubt, there will be those who say that the service delivery agreements (SDAs) are the place for detail.
The Committee will meet with officials from the Department for Social Development to discuss those SDAs and will reiterate that the decision to change the format and presentation of the Programme for Government is short-sighted. Those changes deny the Committee and the public at large the opportunity to compare performances year on year.
Last month, the Committee pleaded for a bold, bottom-up approach towards calculating the Budget based on the cost of funding particular priority programmes rather than setting a broad-based agenda and then facing the dilemma of assigning resources for too broad a range of programmes. That plea has gone unanswered. I am already on record as saying that we are in danger of promising much but delivering little, that the jam has been spread too thinly and that we run the risk of underachieving. I continue to hold these views.
The Department for Social Development deals, in the main, with some of the most marginalised people in society. The Committee has urged the Minister for Social Development to extend the scope of the warm homes scheme to accelerate its progress. The Committee does not deny the cost implications and the competition for funding but, as the Committee has said all along, the costs associated with the warm homes scheme are indisputably one-off capital payments rather than a recurring drain on public resources.
The early eradication of fuel poverty would not only ease the recurring financial pressure on the health budget, but would also positively contribute to the health and well-being of people who are among the most marginalised. However, people who are over 60 with a small occupational pension continue to be excluded, as do families with young children.
That is not to say that the Committee does not appreciate that the sums available for the warm homes scheme will apparently be doubled to £8 million. However, last month the Committee for Social Development welcomed the inclusion of a reference in the Programme for Government to supporting people and the proposed introduction of a new scheme for funding housing support costs by 2003. It will undoubtedly be necessary to plan for and train staff in advance of the introduction of the new scheme. The Committee raised concerns about how the scheme is likely to be financed as there appears to be no reference to it in the draft Budget, but the Committee has had no reply.
Section 2, sub-priority 7, relates to housing and contains promises to improve services and the quality of accommodation generally and to increase the number of properties built to meet special needs. The housing budget will rise by £6·2 million next year, but £4 million of that has already been earmarked for the warm homes scheme, leaving £2·2 million for other housing improvements — a sum that is unlikely even to offset the cost of inflation.
Members from across the House acknowledge the continued importance that social housing plays in society and the fact that it deserves to be properly financed. I will be amazed, as the Committee will be, if we manage to keep pace with this year’s Programme for Government objectives, let alone improve on them.
I have also given notice of the Committee’s intention to monitor carefully the Social Security Agency and the Child Support Agency. Vast sums of public money are to be invested to enable both agencies to improve the accuracy and speed of their claims handling. Some members of the Committee for Social Development recently visited a service that is being piloted in Dungannon that delivers a single point of access for some services provided by the Training & Employment Agency and some benefits administered by the Social Security Agency. Members were impressed by what they saw and will be interested to see the findings of the evaluation of the pilot scheme and what it might mean for extending the programme across the region.
In conclusion, the Social Development Committee recognises that much of the policy for tackling disadvantage and community development is under review. Nevertheless, it is a vitally important area of spending priority. The issue must be raised in tomorrow’s debate, and I will save my remarks until then.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I have comments of my own to make, but I begin with those of the Committee. The Committee was especially pleased that the Programme for Government identified a significant contribution in each of the Executive’s priorities. In particular, the Committee noted that the revised programme highlights more clearly the role of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in the delivery of almost all of those priorities.
Key priority 6 deals with the development of North/ South, east/west and international relations, and I want to focus on that. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has an important contribution to make, and the Committee has noted that six of the seven sub- priorities relate directly to the Department’s area of responsibility. In particular, we hope that the support indicated in sub-priority 5 for Imagine Belfast’s bid to be European Capital of Culture 2008 will be reflected in financial allocations for next year and beyond. Belfast will compete against cities such as Liverpool, Birmingham, Cardiff, Bradford, Oxford and Brighton, and against joint bids from Newcastle/Gateshead and Bristol/Bath.
The bid must be submitted to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by March 2002, and a shortlist of three cities will be drawn up. The final decision on which of the three will go forward to Europe as the UK’s recommendation will be made in March 2003. At that stage the competition will become even tougher. Even at the UK selection stage the Northern Ireland bid will be up against serious opposition from cities with well-developed physical and cultural infrastructures, cities which have not had to live with the eyes of the world upon them for all the wrong reasons.
No other city has the opportunity for change and growth which Belfast now has. Our people, our culture, our history and our rich creative potential have been obscured in recent times, and the decision to bid for European Capital of Culture 2008 gives us a unique chance to rediscover those. The major success stories are there to be aspired to and learnt from. The most significant and tangible story is that of Glasgow, whose exceptional success can be explained by its bid’s having been strongly focused on people.
The comparison between Belfast and Glasgow is striking. Glasgow in the 1980s was a hard-edged, post- industrial city suffering from declining industries, years of under-resourcing, a poor self-image and with little to offer the visitor. Through the City of Culture process, the emphasis on education, training, community development, social inclusion and changing mindsets has paid off in every way. Importantly, it was not just a one-year wonder. Glasgow’s regeneration and rejuvenation as City of Culture 1990 has had a lasting legacy, and the city continues to grow in confidence and prosperity.
This is an opportunity for us, and those goals lie at the heart of the priorities set out in the Programme for Government. I recognise that the necessary resources may be considerable, but I call on the Executive and this House to make a commitment, not only to provide those but also for proper joined-up government to take hold of the opportunity so that Departments work together to provide the support necessary for the bid to succeed.
The comments which follow come from my membership of the Social Development Committee. Some of them support the concern indicated earlier by the Committee Chairperson. As ever, the funding issue is critical, and nowhere can that be seen more than in housing. I am particularly concerned about the spiralling problem of homelessness. In 2000-01, over 12,694 people were homeless in Northern Ireland, constituting the highest rate of homelessness per head of the population in any region, including England, Scotland and Wales. It is a 24% increase on last year, and as I pointed out in the debate on homelessness, the previous year saw a 17% increase. It is a steadily growing problem. A comparison of the figures from 1991-92 and 2000-01 shows that over those ten years homelessness grew by 26%. Is the problem spiralling out of control?
I urge that homelessness be made a priority in the Programme for Government. It says on page 19 of that document that
"we will work to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to access decent, affordable housing."
That is an umbrella statement that does not focus directly on the real problems; it is aspirational. When I asked the former Minister for Social Development if he was willing to support the aspiration, he clearly was — but only as an aspiration. When I asked him for a financial commitment, he would not give it.
Homelessness does not need more aspirational support. It needs practical support. There is a need for both financial and legislative support. Northern Ireland has already fallen behind other regions in legislative terms. I hope and expect that the new housing Bill will contain the necessary adjustments to bring us up to date. Meanwhile, the focus must be on finance for new build, temporary accommodation and health and social services support for those in that dreadful situation. The requirements were well identified by the contributors to the debate on homelessness, which was carried unanimously.
The Executive and the House rightly support the prioritisation of health and education. Those Departments get some 60% of the Budget, but there are health and educational dimensions to homelessness. The World Health Organisation (WHO) document ‘Health for All’ identified adequate shelter as a prerequisite for good health, and many official strategy documents regularly identify housing as one of the key factors that affect health.
There is a widely held view amongst educationalists that a stable and secure home is a vital element in building an environment for children to learn and to develop into fulfilled and motivated adults. How can education be successful when people are faced with the trauma and disruption of temporary accommodation and rehousing to other areas?
It is also difficult for young homeless people to access education and training opportunities, and New TSN makes a clear case for the prioritisation of homelessness. Making homelessness a priority will open the opportunity for access to Executive programme funds. The funds’ objectives clearly state that they will have particular regard for the Executive’s priorities, as set out in the Programme for Government, and also for their commitments to equality and New TSN. Given that, I vote that we make progress to improve this terrible situation.

Mr Donovan McClelland: There are 30 seconds before ministerial Question Time.

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Question 2, in the name of Mrs Courtney, has been withdrawn.

European Union Strategic Policy Document

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister when the strategic policy document on the European Union will be available.
(AQO 500/01)


I will answer today’s questions on behalf of the First Minister and as Deputy First Minister, with Mr Trimble’s prior agreement.
A paper setting out a framework for the development for Northern Ireland of a co-ordinated, cohesive and strategic approach to the European Union is being finalised with Departments. It is anticipated that the paper will be considered by the Executive early in the new year, prior to discussion with the Committee of the Centre.


The Department’s own corporate plan suggested that the strategic policy document would be ready in July 2001. In response to the Committee of the Centre, the Department indicated that the document would be ready by autumn 2001. We are now told that it will be ready in January 2002, almost six months behind schedule. Can the Minister assure the House that the document will be ready by that date? Does the delay show that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is not taking European Union interests seriously enough?


The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister takes European interests very seriously. The strategy paper is designed to enable the whole Executive, not just my Department, to pursue Northern Ireland interests effectively, by establishing overall priorities for European work. That will assist the development of the policy priorities set out in the Programme for Government.
If we are serious about using this strategy as a means of ensuring a co-ordinated and cohesive effort across all Departments, we must ensure their full involvement. That in itself has been a complex process. Departments must deal with different issues and different levels of activity. It is inevitable that delays will occur in the drawing up of a strategy to cover every Department. Departments face other pressures and distractions in addition to this paper.


What preparations are being made to help businesses prepare for the introduction of the euro in the member states?


Preparations for the euro will depend on the likelihood of its introduction here soon. The Administration have two levels of interest in the matter. First, a ministerial group is meeting in London to deal with administrative issues that the introduction of the euro might present for the Government. We are also examining the impact of the euro on businesses. That will involve studying the impact of our status as a non-euro area that shares a land border with an area where the euro is being used in trade. That involves the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, in particular, because it deals most directly with businesses.

Sellafield

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if it has had any approaches from the Government of the Irish Republic on the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield.
(AQO534/01)


The matter was raised at the summit meeting of the British-Irish Council on 30 November, as I said this morning. The Irish Government and the Isle of Man Administration are taking the lead in examining the issue of radioactive waste from Sellafield. The Administrations are preparing a paper on this, which will be discussed at an environment sectoral meeting. The Irish Government have not made any approaches to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister regarding the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield.


The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister know that last Tuesday, the Minister of the Environment told the House that he had not been consulted by the British Government on the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel plant at Sellafield.
Does he find it acceptable that the United Kingdom Government should take such action over a matter that affects the vital interests of a territory under the authority of a UK regional Government without any prior consultation? After all, Sellafield is closer to Belfast than it is to Sheffield or Birmingham.


I note fully the concerns raised by the Member. I conveyed the cross-party concern that has been expressed in the Assembly about Sellafield and, in particular, the development of the MOX plant, at the meeting of the British-Irish Council. I emphasised the need for information and real consultation about such developments. I will be happy to convey the Member’s views in any future discussion on the issue.


The Irish Government, and others, must be congratulated on their determination to use every means at their disposal to stop the activities at Sellafield. In view of the Assembly’s unanimous decision last Tuesday to ask for the closure of Sellafield and the withdrawal of any licence for the MOX activities, can the Deputy First Minister assure the House that his office and the Department of the Environment will take seriously the potential for disaster as a result of terrorist action or human error? Will the Executive co-operate as far as possible with the Southern Government and others to solve the Sellafield problem?


As I said, the matter will be discussed further in the environment sector of the British-Irish Council. The Executive will determine the precise attitude that we will take on some of the detailed issues, but the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is alert to the concerns that have been expressed in the Chamber, not only last week, but on previous occasions. My Department will work with other Departments that have a particular interest in such environmental and health considerations.


I call Mr Mick Murphy.


My question has already been answered.

British–Irish Council

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister when the next meeting of the British-Irish Council will take place, and what will be the items for discussion.
(AQO 509/01)


The next British-Irish Council summit meeting is scheduled for April 2002 in Jersey, and the main topic of discussion will be the knowledge economy. The full agenda has not yet been finalised.


My intended supplementary question on Sellafield has already been answered. I urge the Deputy First Minister to put four issues on the agenda at the next British-Irish Council meeting: reprocessing; the operation of obsolete plants; discharges; and storage. I also urge him to ensure that the relationship between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our Department of the Environment is put on a proper basis. We need proactive, co-ordinated action to represent the views of the Assembly on licensing and the continuation of Sellafield.


I acknowledge the Member’s long-standing and active interest in the issue. Many of the views that he has voiced down the years are now reflected more widely in these islands.
The environment sector of the British-Irish Council will meet again. The Irish Government and the Isle of Man Government will lead the work on radioactive waste and Sellafield. We will ensure that our response to any papers issued by the Irish Government or the Isle of Man Government incorporates the four areas that Mr McGrady has identified.

Homelessness

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if Executive programme funds have been earmarked to deal with the issue of homelessness, especially during the Christmas season.
(AQO 535/01)


Homelessness is a year- round problem, and it is important that none of us forgets those who do not have anywhere to call home. Obviously, at Christmas those less fortunate than ourselves, including the homeless, are rightly prominent in our thoughts.
The Executive recognise that housing support is particularly important for those who are homeless, not least at this time of the year. In order to reduce the plight of the homeless, the Housing Executive is spending approximately £11·5 million each year on homelessness services. In addition, the Housing Executive launched a review of its homelessness strategy and services in September 2001, with the purpose of improving services to the homeless in Northern Ireland. Consultation finishes at the end of this month, and the review is due to be completed in March 2002.
Regarding Executive programme funds, no bids for allocations aimed specifically at tackling the problem of homelessness were received in the funding round I announced to the Assembly on Monday 3 December. We should not forget the valuable work done by a range of voluntary organisations for the homeless, and we take this opportunity to commend them for their year-round efforts to help the less fortunate.


I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. However, do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the magnitude of the problem of homelessness manifests itself particularly at Christmas? Funding was allocated last year to deal specifically with the homeless at Christmas; will that be the case in the current year?


Last year, following discussion between the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Minister for Social Development, the Department for Social Development was able to announce a special allocation of funding to help those organisations and shelters providing particular measures at Christmas for the homeless. I can confirm that the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the current Minister for Social Development again discussed the point last week. I can assure the Member that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will encourage any measure this year similar to that which came forward last year. As was the case last year, any announcements would be for the Minister for Social Development to make.


My question has already been answered to some extent. I realise that the Deputy First Minister is somewhat hard-pressed with so many responsibilities today, which must be difficult. However, I would like him to give some thought to the question that I raised earlier in connection with the Executive programme funds. If homelessness were a priority — and we all know the terrible figures that have been recently released — would it be eligible for funding in the coming year under the Executive programme funds? Under normal policy, and indeed under TSN, is it not possible to categorise homelessness as a priority?


There would certainly be no grounds for anybody to say that homelessness, or measures to improve support to those who are homeless, would be ineligible for the Executive programme funds. Considering the range of funds available, one could possibly see bids in relation to some developments being considered under the social inclusion fund. Equally, certain measures aimed at directing some new services or measures to the problems of homeless people could be considered under the new directions fund. Nothing in the criteria for the Executive programme funds would rule out any such bid.


Does the Minister agree that homelessness is only part of the problem? According to figures that were published last week, in one year alone more than 2,000 people died as a result of the poverty trap. What steps will be taken to address that problem? Will the voluntary organisations receive financial assistance to ensure that they can serve the homeless and the many others in that category?


I remind Members to ensure that their supplementary questions are relevant to the question on the Order Paper.


The Member’s question is not directly related to housing, but the issue he raised remains in the purview of the Department for Social Development. That Department is responsible for introducing measures to improve support, not least through the community and voluntary sector, for those who are most afflicted by poverty and who depend on benefits. Given the correlation between poverty and homelessness, the Department for Social Development is best placed to deal with those issues.

Fireworks

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in the light of the debate on fireworks on Tuesday 8 May 2001, if it will give details of any discussions it has had with the fireworks safety group.
(AQO 510/01)


On 8 May, during the debate on the motion on fireworks, the Assembly called on the Executive to establish an interdepartmental working group in conjunction with the NIO to examine concerns about fireworks. After the debate we wrote to Minister of State Jane Kennedy to alert her to the Assembly’s concerns, and a copy of our letter was sent to every interested Department. The Northern Ireland fireworks safety group already includes representatives from the Department of Education, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Housing Executive and the NIO. It provides an appropriate mechanism for interdepartmental work on the issue. The issues raised by the Assembly will be discussed at today’s meeting of the fireworks safety group.


What an interesting coincidence of timing that the group should meet today. The meeting follows another autumn during which pensioners and others in Northern Ireland were subjected to the terror caused by fireworks, without anything’s being done. I am not sure whether Jane Kennedy has experienced the effects of many fireworks during her stays in Hillsborough, but I have no doubt that Members of —


Is there a question?


There is always a question.


This is not an opportunity to make speeches or statements.


Now that the group is getting round to discussing, in December, an Assembly debate that took place in May, will the Minister use his officers at the NIO and the Executive Ministers to ensure that next autumn will be free of terror caused by fireworks for pensioners in Northern Ireland?


The group will continue to work not just to reflect Members’ concerns, but to meet the responsibilities of the Departments. It is an appropriate way to deal with an issue that is not straightforward and that does not fall to the devolved Administration alone. There should be no undue inference that the timing of today’s meeting of the group is not a true coincidence.

Executive Committee Meetings

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what action can be taken to safeguard the rights of those affected by the continuing refusal of the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development to attend Executive Committee meetings.
(AQO 540/01)


Under the Belfast Agreement and section 18 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Northern Ireland Minister shall not take up office until he has affirmed the terms of the Pledge of Office. The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development have taken a pledge to fulfil the duties of their ministerial office. Although they were prepared to take up ministerial office, they have so far refused all invitations to participate in Executive meetings to discuss policy and legislative matters that affect their Departments. They have also refused to contribute to strategic discussions about resources and the preparation of the Executive’s Programme for Government, which is to be endorsed by the Assembly.
Although they have not attended Executive meetings in person, both Ministers have complied with the requirements of the ministerial code by seeking the Executive’s agreement to their proposals relating to the Programme for Government, the Budget, legislation and major policy areas that impact on other departmental programmes. The fact that they comment in writing about papers to be discussed by the Executive indicates their confidence in the Ministers who attend Executive meetings to make decisions that affect their Departments’ programmes.
The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development have permitted their senior officials to make presentations on policy areas that concern the Executive. Despite the non-attendance of these Ministers at Executive meetings, the Executive have been able to ensure that important strategic and policy decisions are taken to enable those two Departments to function effectively so that the people of Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged by any political actions.


I welcome the Minister’s upbeat reply to my question. Would the Minister agree that in any other organisation, members of the management who continually absented themselves from board meetings could expect penalties to be imposed on them? Is it reasonable that these Ministers should continue to enjoy the luxuries of power without the responsibility of Executive decisions?


I have already said that the Ministers have taken, and are in compliance with, the Pledge of Office. In declining to attend the Executive, they deny themselves a contribution to the Executive’s wider thinking. However, there is no basis in current provisions on which we might exercise sanctions. Clearly, it is important for all Ministers to take the fullest opportunity available to them to represent the needs of their Departments and the insights that they have as Ministers, at all levels — including in the Executive.


Can the Deputy First Minister tell us whether any key decisions on matters that are the responsibility of these Ministers have been progressed through the Executive in their absence?


As I indicated earlier, in the absence of, for example, the Minister for Regional Development, the Executive in their deliberations on the Programme for Government and the Budget have taken strategic decisions on key infrastructure issues that will affect the people of Northern Ireland. An increased allocation for roads next year is an example. We set aside £40 million over a number of years to ensure that the trans-European network from Larne to the border south of Newry is developed coherently. The "dualling" of the proposed Newry to Dundalk road is also part of that, making a significant contribution to cross-border trade and mobility. That investment should also strengthen the competitiveness of ports.
In line with the commitment in the Programme for Government, the Executive also took the decision to fully fund free travel for the elderly. That took effect from 1 October 2001. The Executive took that decision on the basis of proposals made by the Minister of Finance and Personnel with the encouragement of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Executive have shown sensitivity in the way in which we deal with budgets, the monitoring rounds and Executive programme funds. We are recognising the needs of programmes in every Department, including those whose Ministers do not attend Executive meetings.

North/South Ministerial Council

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the recent meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council.
(AQO 533/01)


Earlier today I made a report to the Assembly on behalf of all the Ministers who attended the North/South Ministerial Council meeting that was held on 30 November. A copy of the communiqué issued following the meeting has been placed in the Assembly Library.


Mr Davis indicated that he did not wish to ask a supplementary question.

Review of Local Government

9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline how the review of public administration will impact on the review of local government; and to make a statement.
(AQO 524/01)


Good governance requires systems of regional and local government that complement each other. We are conscious of the contribution made by councils to building local partnerships and embracing new challenges in areas such as economic development and community relations. As the Minister of the Environment told the Assembly on 12 November, the organisation of local government services will be considered in the context of the review of public administration.
The review, which will cover all aspects of the public sector, not just local government, will be launched in the spring. The Executive are working to finalise details of the review, and we are confident that we are on target. We hope to be in a position to provide the Assembly with draft terms of reference early in the new year.


Does the Deputy First Minister agree that these two reviews need to be dovetailed? It is difficult to see how public administration could be reorganised without taking account of the future size, geographical area and makeup of local councils. We have had statements from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on progress on the review of public administration, but we have heard very little on the review of local government. Does the Minister agree that it is necessary that these go hand-in- hand? Is he aware that the review of local government is being tailored to match the review of public administration?


The First Minister, the Minister of the Environment and I have reflected that the review of local government will proceed in the context of the wider review of public administration. We need to achieve a system of governance that allows regional government to play a part in developing policies and delivering programmes that are effective in meeting the needs of people. Similarly, it should also allow local government not just to deliver local government programmes, but to contribute to good regional government by delivering the local services and policy programmes that they are best placed to deliver. We can apply positive lessons and experiences from partnership working, not just in the European programmes, but in the different sectors as well. In the review of public administration we should not take a single tier of government in isolation, and no tier of government will drive the review.


Does the Minister appreciate the concerns about uncertainty in local government that the forthcoming review is causing, and will he tell us how they will be addressed during the review?


We recognise the difficulties posed by the pending review and the uncertainty that the Member has described. We are anxious to do what we can to ensure that there is no disruption to public services or to those who deliver them during the review. To that end, we are drawing up a comprehensive communications strategy to ensure that, throughout the process, information flows to everyone who may be affected. My Colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has informed the Executive of district councils’ concerns, and those are appreciated. In anticipation of the review, some councils are having difficulties with forward planning and managing resources, including filling new posts and staff vacancies. Completing the review and implementing its outcome will take time. During that period we will not be able to ameliorate all the concerns involved. It is accepted that review is needed, but we must proceed in a thoughtful and effective way, and that coherence will do most to deal with the uncertainty.


Given that the review of public administration and the review of local government were first announced well over a year ago, and given that we are only to learn their terms of reference next spring, will the Minister say in which decade he expects the review to be completed?


The review will be launched next spring, and there will be consultation on the terms of reference to be published early in the new year. No doubt Members will have views, not just on the terms of reference, but also on the approach and structure. It is important to get the review under way so that we can deal with the issues that need to be addressed.
I look forward to the launch of the review in spring 2002, and the delivery of useful material for us to consider in order to progress this matter throughout the year.

North/South Ministerial Council (Premises)

10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what progress has been made to obtain permanent offices in Armagh for the North/South Ministerial Council.
(AQO 520/01)


Although the joint secretariat is operating effectively from temporary accommodation in Armagh, work is continuing to identify and procure a new permanent headquarters. A schedule of accommodation requirements for a new permanent headquarters has been drawn up, and it is currently being developed and evaluated by the professional staff of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s Construction Service and by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin. That evaluation will include an investment appraisal of options, which include a new build, and also the possibility of refurbishing part of the former Armagh Prison. The evaluation process will take several months, after which the various options will be put before the relevant Departments, North and South, for consideration prior to submission to the North/South Ministerial Council for approval.


Will the Deputy First Minister accept that there is a certain amount of frustration that that prestigious facility has not yet found a permanent home in the city of Armagh? Can he give the House a commitment that the outstanding issues will be resolved before the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council?


Please be brief, Mr Durkan.


The secretariat is located in Armagh and is committed to that location. The evaluation of permanent accomodation is under way and has to follow normal procedures. I anticipate that that evaluation will be concluded by mid-2002.

Regional Development

Question 9 in the name of Mr Byrne has been withdrawn.

Dromore Underpass

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development what progress has been made on the proposals for an underpass to the A1 dual carriageway at the Hillsborough Road junction, Dromore.
(AQO 499/01)


My Department’s Roads Service published the necessary environmental statement in February 2001, and the direction and stopping-up orders in July 2001, in order to progress the junction improvements proposal on the A1 at Hillsborough Road, Dromore. Following those publications, several objections were received, and despite the best efforts of Roads Service officials those objections have not been resolved. Therefore, public inquiries will have to take place. It is hoped that they will commence as early as possible in the new year. The start date for the scheme will depend on the outcome of those inquiries and the availability of funding at that time.


The inhabitants of Dromore, and those who regularly use that junction, will be disappointed that a public inquiry must take place. An 84-year-old woman was recently killed crossing the junction; it is a death trap. Will the Minister tell the House how many objections were received, and the nature of those objections? I understand that several of them were environmental objections that would not stand up to scrutiny. Were that the case, a public inquiry would not be necessary.


I understand the frustration of the people of Dromore who want the scheme to proceed. That frustration is shared by my Department’s Roads Service, which is equally eager to advance the scheme. However, the House recognises that individuals have rights, and it is important that people put forward a material objection to any roads proposal so that it can be thoroughly considered. If an objection cannot be dealt with through discussions with Roads Service officials, the matter should rightly be heard at an inquiry. In this case, there will be inquiries into a number of the features, and not simply the environmental statement or the direction and stopping-up orders.
There were four objections. I have to say to my Colleague that, although he and I may not consider some of the objections to be well founded, I am not in the position to set them aside on that basis. If something will have a material impact on someone’s property and the matter cannot be resolved, there has to be a public inquiry. That is the case in this instance.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. When will the carriageway on the A1 as it passes Dromore — which has been closed for the past 18 months — be reopened?


The Department for Regional Development has a number of proposals relating to the A1. The A1 is a key road in the Province’s infrastructure, and the Department will ensure that there is no undue delay in the opening of any road or the improvements on it. The Roads Service proposes to construct a grade separation junction between the A1 and the Rathfriland Road at Banbridge. The principal objective of that scheme will be to improve road safety at that junction. The estimated cost of that scheme will be about £2·5 million. That is in the Department’s preparation pool, subject to finance. There have been some objections to the scheme, but the Department is doing its best to address the concerns of the objectors. However, the ultimate aim of the Roads Service is to have Northern Ireland’s roads open and operating fully.

Northern Ireland Bus Fleet

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the number of vehicles in Northern Ireland’s bus fleet that are (a) under two years old; (b) under five years old; and (c) older than five years.
(AQO 502/01)


Translink has advised that it has a total bus fleet comprising 1,459 vehicles: 1,195 of them are in service with Ulsterbus, and 264 are in service with Citybus; 99 Ulsterbus vehicles and 44 Citybus vehicles are under two years old; 132 Ulsterbus vehicles and 78 Citybus vehicles are over two years old but under five years old; and 964 Ulsterbus vehicles and 142 Citybus vehicles are older than 5 years.


I thank the Minister for those comprehensive figures. I am sure that he, like myself, is mindful of the sad state of deterioration into which Northern Ireland’s railway stock was allowed to fall under direct rule, aggravated of course by terrorist action, community strife and reprehensible, wanton vandalism. Can the Minister assure the House that he supports, and will continue to support, a rolling programme of replacement for Northern Ireland’s public bus fleet, so that a similar deterioration does not take place under his stewardship?


I give an absolute assurance that I support that. Indeed, in the Department for Regional Development’s present programme approximately £1·7 million has been allocated for new buses in the current year and in the indicative figures for next financial year. The Member will be aware that about 50% of that funding for buses comes from the Department, and the other 50% comes from Translink. That gives a total of £3·4 million, which would purchase only about 28 new buses a year.
If the Member had asked about the replacement age of vehicles, I would have informed him that the Department believes that about 256 of Translink’s vehicles will be due for replacement by next March. The Department expects there to be a replacement age of 18 years for buses and 12 years for coaches. Therefore, while 256 vehicles need to be replaced by next March, we have a budget that will allow the replacement of only 28 buses. The House will therefore see that we are likely to drag further behind as time goes on unless there is a considerable uplift in the amount of money available for an increase in new fleet.


The Minister indicated that over 1,000 buses are over five years old. Can he give any further details of the bus age beyond five years?


I rather threw out the figures, so it was probably hard for the House to assimilate them quickly. There were 1,106 buses in total that were five years or older. That represents 76% of the fleet. However, there are 838 vehicles that are ten years or older, and that represents 57% of the fleet. As I indicated in reply to the earlier question, 256 of those are past the replacement age of 12 years for coaches and 18 years for buses. The Member might also be interested to know that the oldest Ulsterbus is 23 years old.

Senior Citizen Concession Passes

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the number of senior citizen free fare passes issued over the past three months; and to make a statement.
(AQO 513/01)


In the last three months, 12,621 senior citizen concession passes were issued. This represents an increase of 450% compared with the number of passes issued during the same three months last year. I am pleased to report the positive response that my free travel initiative has received. Free travel is enabling many older people to enjoy the benefits of enhanced mobility and is making an important contribution to addressing social needs in the community.


As a member of Castlereagh Borough Council who piloted the free-fares scheme I welcome the increased uptake. It justifies the implementation of our party’s policies, and I congratulate the Minister for pursuing this objective to a successful outcome.


I remind Mrs Robinson that it is the opportunity to ask a question.


I will be accused, whatever I do.
The Minister will know that many Members have been approached by war-disabled pensioners under the age of 65 who are seeking the opportunity to take part in the free-fares scheme. Has the Minister considered the special case for their inclusion in the scheme?


Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure the House that that was not a planted question. Of course, I find little to disagree with in the comments that were made in the Member’s question.
Just as in Castlereagh when the pilot scheme was carried out, the significant increase is not just a case of those who are taking passes out, which was what the original question was about. I am also told that Translink’s figures for the first month since the introduction of free travel show increases in the number of older people travelling to be in the region of 28% on Ulsterbus, up to 50% on Citybus and 35% on Northern Ireland Railways. That is a considerable uptake from senior citizens.
With regard to the point about war-disabled pensioners, they have always been considered as a special category as far as concessionary fares are concerned. They along with senior citizens over 65 enjoyed the concession of 50% up until the point when the over 65s were able to get free fares. Therefore war-disabled pensioners currently benefit from half-fare travel on public transport. I believe that they ought to be treated in the same way as retirement pensioners over 65 years of age. Consequently, I am proposing that war-disabled pensioners under 65 be eligible for free travel alongside registered blind people and senior citizens over 65 years of age.
The resources required for this enhancement of the concessionary fare scheme are quite modest and should not prove to be a stumbling block. The legislation requires approval by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Therefore I have written to the Minister of Finance and Personnel seeking his agreement to introduce my proposal forthwith.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister indicate whether the free- fare passes held by senior citizens entitle them to free travel on the public ferry services operated by his Department and by private companies?


My Colleague, Mr Campbell, made a statement about the Strangford ferry, indicating that it would be included in the scheme. A similar statement has been made about another ferry service. If the ferry services are run by my Department, the only outstanding problem — that of the audit trail — is overcome. I am keen that free public transport, including transport on the ferries, should be enjoyed by those who are entitled to it. The problem goes beyond the ferries that are run by my Department, because the Department also funds some free fares for private operators, provided it is satisfied with their modus operandi.


Free passes have been collected by 12,621 people, which is good news for everyone who campaigned through the years for the scheme. That includes Newry and Mourne District Council, which also piloted the scheme.
Will free travel be introduced for people who accompany disabled or ill senior citizens who require assistance when travelling?


I am happy to mention Newry and Mourne District Council, which partnered Castlereagh Borough Council in the pilot scheme. When I was involved in the Committee that supervised the pilot scheme, I got the impression that free travel means nothing unless there is an adequate bus service. That applies particularly to people living in the country, and work remains to be done to improve our rural bus service.
With regard to companions travelling with disabled people, my Colleague, Mr Campbell, indicated that the Department would examine the extension of the concessionary fare scheme over the next few months. It would be appropriate to extend the scheme to people with disabilities. Under the provisions of the Transport Act 2000, certain categories of disability receive a concessionary half-fare as a minimum in Great Britain. However, these categories are not covered by the scheme in Northern Ireland. That matter will receive urgent attention. Whether the scheme will extend to those who accompany disabled people will be a matter for consideration in the review.


It is interesting that the DUP has attempted to claim credit for free bus passes. Had the DUP had its way, there would have been no Executive to introduce free bus passes.
Further to the Minister’s reply to the Member for Strangford (Mrs I Robinson), is he aware that some transport services that are used extensively by senior citizens have been reduced? My home town of Ballyclare is an example: the Saturday service has been removed completely. Why is free travel handed out with one hand and the bus service taken away with the other?


I am not sure what kind of a Province the Member thinks we might have where there would be no Executive. Of course there would be an Executive, but it would not be a home-grown Executive. It was a Northern Ireland Office Minister who, after much pressure, agreed to have a pilot scheme for free fares. The scheme would have progressed whether it had been a Northern Ireland Executive or a UK Executive dealing with the matter. I am content that the DUP’s manifesto proposal for free fares has now come to fruition, and the public appreciates that.
Transport services are an operational matter. There are some routes in my own constituency where services have been reduced. I made enquiries about the situation with Translink — I am sure Jim Wilson has done the same thing — and I was told that the reductions were introduced because of service usage. If the Member will give me specific details of the case that he has in mind, I shall take up the matter with Translink.

Translink Buses and Trains

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the number of trains and buses owned by Translink that are currently in operational use.
(AQO 521/01)


Translink has advised that, in addition to its two Enterprise-class rolling stock, which are used between Belfast and Dublin, it currently has a total operational fleet of 28 train sets. The fleet comprises nine three-car 450 castle class and 19 class 80 sets. Translink also expects to add eight-car train, which formerly operated on the Gatwick Express route, to its fleet shortly. By early 2002, Translink should, therefore, have a total operational fleet of 31 sets.
Translink’s bus fleet comprises, as I said earlier, 1,459 buses, 1,195 of which are in service with Ulsterbus and 264 in service with Citybus. Not every train set or vehicle can be operational at the same time given Translink’s rolling programme of repairs and servicing.


I was pleased to hear, in response to Mrs Robinson’s question, that the Minister is considering extending the scheme to include some type of transport concession for those with disabilities. However, it does not matter what concessions are made if transport is not accessible in the first place. Will the Minister tell us how many buses and trains are accessible to people with disabilities, especially in rural areas?


I agree with the Member’s point. I am glad that my Department’s bid for funding for buses is gaining me so many friends and supporters. As the Member might expect, only the newest buses will be suitably adapted to accommodate those with disabilities. I stress the point further by saying that the average age of the bus fleet in Northern Ireland is 13 years. The average age in Great Britain is eight years, and it is 4·7 years in the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, there is considerable catching up to be done. If we are to have buses that are accessible for the disabled, we must improve and renew the bus fleet regularly — every year — at a significantly higher rate than we have been doing thus far.


Will the Minister tell us how Northern Ireland’s trains and buses compare to those in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland? Will he also confirm the cost Translink has incurred as a result of vandalism? What percentage of its budget goes towards trying to address that spiralling cost and drain on its resources?


A couple of weeks ago, I noticed a report that said that the United Kingdom was falling dramatically behind the rest of the civilised world as far as roads and transport were concerned. As I said in response to an earlier question, we are falling behind the rest of the United Kingdom in that regard.
I am informed that the average age of the Republic of Ireland’s Expressway coach fleet is between four and five years. However, the average age of its city service fleet is around 2·5 years. That is a remarkably new fleet. The Transport Minister in the United Kingdom has set clear targets for an average age of eight years. At present, Northern Ireland’s average is 13 years. However, we are asking for buses that are 18 years old and coaches that are 12 years old to be replaced. We cannot meet that target even under present Budget arrangements. No doubt, increased bids must be made to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
I hope that I can draw on the support of the House for a successful outcome to those bids. With regard to the Member’s comments about vandalism, the Department faces an uphill struggle with public transport in Northern Ireland. It is a disgrace that valuable resources are being wasted to repair damage caused by vandalism rather than being used to upgrade and update the fleet.


I refer to the Minister’s earlier answer, in which he confirmed that the refurbished Gatwick Express trains could be entering into service in Northern Ireland early in 2002. Will those trains be utilised on the busiest commuter routes, such as the east Antrim line, in order to benefit the maximum number of commuters and further encourage the use of public transport?


The House will be aware that the Department recently conveyed to Translink its approval for the purchase of 23 new trains at a total cost of £87 million. The tendering process has been completed. The three tenders received are currently being evaluated. Translink hopes to be able to award the contract to a supplier in early 2002. Delivery of the first batch of 12 train sets for testing is envisaged by February 2003, and delivery of the remaining 11 sets by September 2003.
Where those train sets are used when they become available to Translink is an operational matter. I hope that they would be used widely across the Province and that everybody would see the benefits of the new trains. Consistent with the regional development strategy and, I expect, the regional transportation strategy that will soon be published, in Northern Ireland we are tasked with encouraging people to use public transport. That will not be possible unless public transport is upgraded and people are offered comfortable and regular services.

A32 Dromore/Irvinestown Road

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail what plans he has to upgrade the A32 Dromore/Irvinestown road.
(AQO 497/01)


Roads Service has plans to carry out an improvement scheme on the A32 between Dromore and Irvinestown at Lettergash. The scheme, costing some £270,000, involves the widening and resurfacing of the carriageway over approximately 600 metres. The works are programmed to start early next month. Roads Service also has plans to undertake two other improvement schemes at Lisdoo and Corlaghdergan on this section of the road.
The scheme at Lisdoo, which is currently being designed, involves the vertical realignment and resurfacing of the carriageway over approximately 900 metres. That scheme will cost somewhere in the region of £500,000 to £600,000. Subject to the acquisition of land and the availability of funds, Roads Service plans to commence the work towards the end of the 2002-03 financial year.
The scheme at Corlaghdergan involves the widening and resurfacing of the carriageway over approximately 700 metres. The work will cost around £350,000. Subject to the availability of funds, Roads Service plans to start that scheme in 2003-04.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)


Go raibh maith agat, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer and for the details of the schemes.
I ask the Minister to consider major capital funding for the A32 in the future, as well as for the present schemes that have been outlined. The A32 is used extensively by ambulances and cars ferrying patients, expectant mothers, visitors and others between two hospitals — the Erne Hospital in Enniskillen, and the Tyrone County Hospital in Omagh. I would like that road to be accorded greater priority for major capital funding in the future.


People in Tyrone and Fermanagh have expressed concern about travel times and delays on that route, as certain health services are currently provided only at the Erne Hospital in Enniskillen or the Tyrone County Hospital in Omagh. The recent Hayes review of acute hospitals recommended Enniskillen as the location for a new acute hospital for the region. It is not for me to say whether that recommendation will be accepted, but the Department will undoubtedly continue to review the situation as and when that decision is taken.
The Department requires more funding for Roads Service to make further improvements to any road in Northern Ireland. As far as the A32 is concerned, the three schemes that I listed show that we recognise that as a priority. I hope that those schemes can proceed. If more funding becomes available, the Department will consider other schemes in the area. My predecessor, Mr Campbell, wrote to all Members in September asking if there was any scheme that they particularly wanted to be included in the 10-year forward programme; that was followed by a letter from Colin James, the chief executive of Roads Service. Perhaps surprisingly, there was no correspondence from the hon Member on that.

Newry Bypass

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline any improvement works planned for the Newry bypass.
(AQO 511/01)


Roads Service has already carried out several measures to improve road safety on the Newry bypass. In addition, Roads Service proposes to ban traffic from turning right off the bypass into Carnagat Road. Subject to the making of the necessary legislation, it is hoped to introduce this measure in 2003-04.
In April 2001, Roads Service commissioned consultants to carry out a feasibility study to identify options for upgrading to dual carriageway standard the section of the A1 between Beech Hill and Cloghogue roundabout. As part of the study, the consultants will consider several options, including the possible improvement and upgrading of the existing route, which includes the Newry bypass, and a possible new route from Beech Hill to join the Newry bypass near the Cloghogue roundabout.


Time is up. If the Minister has any more information for the Member, he should give it in writing.

Environment

Question 10, in the name of Mr Tommy Gallagher, has been transferred to the Minister for Regional Development and will receive a written answer.

Planning Applications (Wind Farms)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment what special considerations are taken when planning applications are received for the erection of wind farms.
(AQO 523/01)


All applications for wind farm development are considered under existing planning regulations and policies, taking account of representations received following normal advertising and consultation procedures.
The main policy guidance in this area is contained in ‘A planning strategy for rural Northern Ireland’, which states that all proposals for wind farms will be assessed in respect of their implications for the visual, ecological and historical landscapes. The implications for agriculture and the safety and amenity of local residents are also considered. It also makes clear that permission will not be granted in any location where there would be a seriously detrimental impact on the amenity of an area of outstanding natural beauty or any area that has been designated for its conservation, scientific, archaeological or historic interest.
Consultations on wind farm proposals normally include the environmental health department of the relevant local council, Environment and Heritage Service, Water Service, Roads Service, the Ministry of Defence and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Under the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, my Department may require an environmental statement where a proposal for a wind farm involves the installation of more than two turbines or where the hub height of any turbine or the height of any other structure is greater than 15 metres. Such a statement provides my Department with detailed information about the impact that a proposal may have on the environment.


Is the Minister satisfied with the situation in Fermanagh and South Tyrone with regard to the proliferation of wind farms? Does he agree that a skyline of wind turbines will detract from and spoil the natural beauty of Fermanagh, especially?


The Member’s question comes very close to my heart, and I thank her for it. Coming from Fermanagh, I am well aware of its natural beauty. It is the jewel in the Province’s crown. Several planning applications for wind farms in Fermanagh are being assessed by the Department of the Environment. The assessment, in appropriate circumstances, requires an environmental statement to evaluate the environmental impact of proposals.
All proposals for such development are assessed in respect of their implications for the visual, ecological and historical landscapes, and the implications for agriculture, the safety of local residents and the amenity of the area. I recognise, however, that wind farms have the potential to affect landscapes adversely. All practical measures should be taken to avoid or minimise that, and such measures will be included in any environmental statement required by my Department for such proposals.
It should, however, be pointed out that wind farms provide an alternative form of energy that does not involve the consumption of fossil fuels and the production of greenhouse gases. They do, therefore, deliver some environmental benefits.


The Minister said that he would not allow wind farms to be set up in areas of outstanding natural beauty. In view of that, can he explain to the House why, on an application that came before Ards Borough Council, his Department allowed a small wind farm to be erected on the Lough Shore Road in Portaferry? That wind farm sits almost alongside Strangford Lough, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Despite my objections and concerns at the time, the Department approved the application.


I admit that the Member’s question is very good, but each case is considered on its own merits. As I said earlier, under current regulations the Department of the Environment may require an environmental statement where a proposal for a wind farm involves the installation of more than two turbines. Each case is assessed very thoroughly and is taken on its own merits. In some areas the applications are refused, and in some they are approved. I assure Mr McCarthy that those matters are not taken lightly, and applications are examined very closely and adequately.

Tachographs

2. asked the Minister of the Environment what plans he has to enforce the use of tachographs in the haulage industry.
(AQO 537/01)


Tachograph enforcement is required in Northern Ireland under the Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996, which implement the requirements of the relevant European regulations. Enforcement is undertaken by the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (DVTA) and by the police. When vehicles are presented for the annual roadworthiness test, DVTA examiners check for the presence of a tachograph and whether it is working, appropriately calibrated and sealed. Compliance checks on tachograph charts on heavy goods vehicles and buses are carried out at the roadside and by random visits to premises to ensure that drivers comply with the requirements on driving and rest periods. The European Directive requires each member state to check a minimum of 1% of charts each year for compliance. In Northern Ireland that equates to over 48,000 checks. The DVTA has a target to carry out 20,000 of those. The remainder are carried out by the police as the main enforcement agency for tachograph charts. Last year, the Department of the Environment initiated enforcement proceedings in 397 cases, and 287 of those led to prosecution. As a result, fines totalling over £33,000 were levied on operators and drivers.


Perhaps the Department of the Environment should look a little more closely at the issue, because some drivers are driving for longer than the allotted time — some are driving for 16 hours a day. Indeed, some companies blacklist drivers who will not drive the extended hours. Can the Minister look into that, please?


I thank the Member for the points that she made. I assure her that my Department takes these matters seriously. The DVTA and the police are the relevant enforcement agencies. They carry out checks to ensure that drivers discharge their responsibilities properly by using tachographs in accordance with the statutory requirements, by not exceeding daily and fortnightly driving periods and by taking daily and weekly rest periods. Checks are carried out at operators’ premises, as well as at the roadside.
To comply with EU Directive 88/599/EEC, each member state — and this includes Northern Ireland — must examine a minimum number of charts each year for compliance, calculated each year in accordance with the Directive. When vehicles are presented for the annual vehicle roadworthiness test, DVTA examiners check for the presence of a tachograph and whether it is working, appropriately calibrated and sealed.

Road Safety Campaign

3. asked the Minister of the Environment to give his assessment of the success of his road safety campaign.
(AQO 505/01)


The combined efforts of local road safety departments and agencies, including the police, have contributed to a significant reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Road fatalities are now at about half the level they were in the 1970s. There were approximately 4,000 fewer deaths and serious injuries in the period from 1989-2000 than if numbers had continued at the 1989 level.
Nevertheless, the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads remains totally unacceptable. Since devolution, I have successfully obtained additional resources to double the number of road safety education officers to work with schools, and I have substantially increased the budget for road safety advertising, resulting in new campaigns and additional airtime.
It is gratifying to see that those campaigns, supplemented by police enforcement, are having a positive impact. For example, with increased seat belt wearing and improved road user attitudes, there have been 137 road deaths to date this year, compared to 155 for the same period last year. That reduction is very welcome but, as recent events show, more needs to be done.
I have also initiated a wide debate on road safety through the publication of the ‘Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010’ consultation document. Officials are considering the responses, and next spring I intend to publish a new 10-year strategic plan. However, the Government can do only so much. The key to achieving significant reductions in road casualties lies in more responsible road user behaviour. It will take the efforts of all to ensure that road users take personal responsibility for their safety and the safety of others.


I thank the Minister for his response to that serious question. Can he confirm that, despite the recent spate of tragedies on the roads, the underlying long-term trend is downward? Will he join me in urging everyone to take special care in the run-up to Christmas so that more families are spared the terrible grief that such losses bring?


I thank Mr McClarty for a special question and a very special statement; it is very important at this time. The Department’s anti-drink-driving campaign was launched about 10 days ago. Sadly, that afternoon there were three deaths in one road accident. It is always difficult and sad for those who lose a loved one, but especially so coming up to Christmas.
To 9 December, 137 people have been killed on our roads this year. That compares to 155 in the same period in 2000. Although fatalities in 2000 — 171 in total— were higher than in previous years, the long- term trend has been downward, despite the increase in the volume of traffic. Twenty-five years ago, more than 300 people were killed on the roads annually; for example, 355 were killed in 1977, while the average figure for the past five years is 150.
There will always be peaks and troughs in the numbers killed on the roads, and 1999 saw the lowest number of deaths — 141 — for over 40 years. While it is encouraging that the number of deaths and serious injuries this year remains lower than last year, the recent fatalities are tragic and serve to reinforce the need for all road users to take the utmost care, especially during the festive season.
On Saturday, at Colaghty Parish Church, in my home county of Fermanagh, I attended the funeral of the young couple killed on the local roads last week. It was a sad occurrence. Three people were buried on Saturday afternoon. My heart bleeds for those who have lost loved ones in such tragic circumstances. At such times I often think of the words of Alfred Tennyson,
"But oh for the touch of a vanished hand, And the sound of a voice that is still!"


The road safety situation is far from satisfactory. What further action does the Minister intend to take, before the Christmas period, to ensure that enough resources are made available to actively tackle drug-driving as well as drink-driving? A Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions report indicated that 18% of road accidents are attributed to drivers who have consumed drugs. That is a serious matter. What further action will the Department take over the Christmas period?


The Department takes the matter to heart and deals with the problem diligently. I am worried about it. One death is too many. Alcohol consumption remains a more serious problem than drugs as a cause of road deaths and serious injuries. There is no evidence yet to show that illegal drug use by drivers in Northern Ireland is a principal factor in causing crashes. I am aware of the increasing use of drugs among young drivers. Extensive research into drug-driving is being carried out in Great Britain. There are no current plans to carry out an anti-drug-driving campaign. However, I assure the Member that that will be kept under constant review.

St Joseph’s Church (Structural Work)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment to make a statement on the major structural work that is being undertaken on the interior of St Joseph’s Church in Prince’s Dock Street, Belfast.
(AQO 525/01)


The work that is being carried out inside St Joseph’s Church is limited to the stripping of small areas of plasterwork to investigate the condition of elements of the building and the affixing of ties to monitor the movement of the structure. At the rear of the church, props have been installed to provide structural support for the gallery. Most of the internal fixtures have been placed in secure storage. The pulpit and some pews remain in the building. The firm that carried out the investigation has recommended that a structural engineer be appointed to study structural movement, the state of underground piling and the seating of the trusses.


As the Minister is aware, the building was deconsecrated in February. Given that it is a grade B listed building, will the Environment and Heritage Service continue to inspect the inside of the building? There is concern about it. The Minister mentioned the pews, some of which are missing. Is everything covered by the protection of the Department of the Environment? Will there be regular inspections? Is there any planning permission for hoardings outside the building?


As the church has been deconsecrated, it no longer enjoys ecclesiastical exemption from listed building consent. Any works of alteration, extension or demolition will require my Department’s approval. However, there was no requirement for listed building consent for the works that have been carried out to date because they were purely investigative and were in the interest of the safety of the structure.
My officials are aware of the works, but were not formally consulted because listed building consent was not required. However, the nature of the work was confirmed when officials from Environment and Heritage Service recently met the parish priest, Fr David White, on site. The interior fixtures were removed for safe keeping when the building was still a consecrated church. It would therefore have been exempt from the requirement for listed building consent.

Sellafield

5. asked the Minister of the Environment if there has been any contact from the Government of the Irish Republic over its opposition to the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield.
(AQO 506/01)


My Department has had no contact with the Government of the Irish Republic over its opposition to the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield. The issue was raised at the plenary meeting of the British-Irish Council in Dublin on 30 November.
It has been agreed that the Sellafield issue should be considered by the environment sector of the British-Irish Council on the basis of a joint paper on Sellafield that the Irish and Manx Governments had previously agreed to prepare. I shall participate fully in those discussions and ensure that relevant Northern Ireland considerations are put forward. As the Member knows, neither I nor my Department has any jurisdiction over the operation or regulation of the Sellafield plant. Therefore, it would not be appropriate or productive for the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to deal with the issue bilaterally. The British-Irish Council provides a forum within which all Administrations with an interest in Sellafield can be represented.


The Minister will be aware, especially after last week’s debate, that the issue is emotive. Can he point out any reliable scientific evidence that shows whether the mixed oxide (MOX) reprocessing plant represents a greater danger to Northern Ireland than existing dangers?


The MOX plant causes much concern, and we are keeping a close eye on emissions. However, as I said earlier, we have no power over that matter, other than to make representations on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I assure the Member that we shall watch the situation closely. The events of 11 September in America have created a fear that there will be an attack on a plant such as Sellafield. We shall make every representation that we can and do all that is within our power, and all that our permanent structure allows, to deal with that problem.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Has the Minister been in contact with his counterparts in the Irish Government, particularly in the light of the cross-party concerns that were highlighted in the House last week about the welfare and health of the people on this entire island?


I re-emphasise that we are aware of this Administration’s concerns and those of the Administration South of the border. We are willing to work with anybody for the benefit of all people where possible, but, as I have said, Sellafield is a matter for Her Majesty’s Government, to which we shall make representations where and when we can. There is great fear about the MOX plant emissions, especially since the events of 11 September and the concerns that there are about nuclear security in America. I stress that I shall make what representations I can. The situation is difficult, and there are concerns abroad.


I welcome the fact that the Minister will keep the situation under surveillance. Will he tell us what specific measures his Department will put in place to ensure ongoing monitoring of the effects of the MOX plant in the coming months?


My Department arranges for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to take samples and analyse sea water, fish, shellfish, seaweed and sediments on the bed of the Irish Sea. That work has been ongoing since the early 1950s. Northern Ireland’s results consistently reveal minimal amounts of radioactivity at levels that are consistent with normal background levels. Those results are published in the ‘Radioactivity in Food and the Environment’ annual report. They also appear in the Northern Ireland digest of statistics. People in Northern Ireland receive an average of 2,500 microsieverts of radiation a year from natural and artificial sources. Exposure to radon in the home accounts for 50% of that total, with 12% coming from medical exposure. Nuclear discharges account for less than 0·1%. A recent study undertaken in collaboration with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and University College Dublin on radioactivity levels in Strangford Lough shows that the radiation dose from artificial radioactivity is of negligible significance.

Sellafield

6. asked the Minister of the Environment what representations he has made to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd concerning the commissioning of the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield; and to make a statement.
(AQO 491/01)


I have made no representations to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd concerning the commissioning of the MOX plant at Sellafield. I acknowledge the concerns expressed about a range of potential safety risks from the operation of the MOX plant, which we have just referred to. As I said in last week’s debate, my officials have written to their counterparts in the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to seek confirmation that all relevant risks were fully taken into account in the MOX decision. Their reply pointed to those parts of the decision document that dealt with the safety, security, environmental and health issues, and, in particular, to the advice from the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. I have since written to Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with a copy to Patricia Hewitt at the Department of Trade and Industry, seeking further information and assurance about the regulation of Sellafield and the security arrangements following the events of 11 September. I await their responses.
I shall also ensure that Northern Ireland considerations are fully taken into account when the environment sector of the British-Irish Council discusses the paper on Sellafield which is being jointly prepared by the Irish and Manx Governments. I assure everybody that my objective is to be fully satisfied that Northern Ireland’s interests are sufficiently protected. To that end, I will convey to the Assembly as much of the information obtained in these exchanges as the constraints of national security will allow.


I thank the Minister for his response. It is the sixth response on Sellafield in the Chamber this afternoon, which is very welcome indeed. Will the Minister take on board the fact that there were two prerequisite elements for the licensing of the MOX plant that were not covered in his reply? First, the Health and Safety Executive had not reported before the licence was granted. Secondly, he completely omitted the economic case, which is also a requirement of the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). That was omitted deliberately, because it is infeasible.
The Minister is the one person who can drive this on behalf of the House. Will he assure the House that he will be proactive in representing last week’s debate and today’s questions? He must ensure, in co-operation with all relevant parties, that the British Government are made fully aware. The strongest possible expression of discontent, to put it mildly, must be made to them, and we must be proactive.


I can assure Mr McGrady that, as far as we possibly can, we will make undoubted representations for the protection of Northern Ireland.

Statutory Best Value Regime

7. asked the Minister of the Environment what consultation he has had with his ministerial counterpart in the National Assembly for Wales on the benefits of a statutory best value regime.
(AQO 498/01)


My Department has received papers from the Welsh Office on the best value process in Wales, including details of the plans to review that process over the next few months. I have also spoken to my counterpart in the Welsh Assembly, Edwina Hart, the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Housing, to learn at first hand what the review is likely to address. My understanding of the position is that the principles underlying the statutory framework for best value in Wales are not being questioned. Rather, the review will address details of its implementation and arrangements for its scrutiny. The broad objective of the review is to provide a workable model for best value in Wales that will give practical effect to the existing framework within current statutory provisions. Following a consultation process, the review group aims to have revised guidance in place by 1 April 2002.
The Local Government (Best Value) Bill currently before the Assembly includes five clauses that provide for a basic framework in the interest of council residents and ratepayers.


I hope that, after his consultations with his Welsh counterpart, the Minister will take this issue seriously and reconsider the process of introducing statutory best value to Northern Ireland, which he is currently engaged in. The Bill appears to be inappropriate at this time, and it does not have the support of the local authorities or the unions that represent those working in local authorities. It has already cost local authorities an immense amount of money. Much valuable staff time has been tied up in the operation of voluntary best value, and much more of that time — which could be put to better use — will be tied up in the operation of statutory best value.


I thank Mr Poots for his question, but I am not sure whether the sentiments expressed come from Edwin Poots MLA or Cllr Edwin Poots; he may wish to declare an interest.
Best value is designed as a framework within which councils should deliver local services according to the wishes of residents and ratepayers, at a price that they are willing to pay. People are entitled to know how their council is performing, how well their money is being spent and what future plans the council has for local services.
I am committed to avoiding the imposition of unnecessary bureaucracy on councils, but their views should not be given precedence over the rights and needs of ratepayers, residents and users of council services. Equally, the Assembly, with its preponderance of district councillors, should not allow its judgement to be clouded by the wishes of councillors at the expense of the views of local people, who deserve value for money and who are entitled to transparency and accountability in local service provision. Openness and transparency are vital elements of the Local Government (Best Value) Bill.


As Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, I am aware of the issues relating to accountability. Does the Minister agree that there should be a robust public accountability framework for local government, as there is for central Government? I declare an interest as a councillor, but I speak as Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee.


I acknowledge the fact that the Member has declared an interest. I agree that there is a need for a robust public accountability framework for local government, but the application of best value across the wider public sector goes beyond my remit as Minister of the Environment.
Central Government already operates a type of best value framework. Indeed, in many ways, it is more rigorous than the best value framework that I propose for district councils. It includes the Programme for Government, public service agreements, published departmental and agency corporate and business plans, the work of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, value for money studies and the work of the Public Accounts Committee and other Statutory Committees of the Assembly. That accountability framework was designed for central government, and it would be too burdensome for local government as presently structured. The Local Government (Best Value) Bill, on the other hand, is designed to fit the specific circumstances of the local government sector.
I am aware that proposals for regulating best value in housing and education are being considered and that the Department of Education is drafting legislation covering the application of best value by education and library boards. Similarly, the Department for Social Development is examining proposals to formulate best value in the housing sector. My ministerial colleagues in the relevant Departments are responsible for the detail of those proposals, but I can assure Mr Bell that best value and accountability are seen as an absolute necessity.

Planning Applications

8. asked the Minister of the Environment if he plans to place contentious planning applications on hold until such time as the reform of local government is in place.
(AQO 504/01)


The Executive gave a commitment in the draft Programme for Government for 2002-03 to launch the review of public administration by spring 2002. The organisation of local government services will be considered in the context of that review, which will cover all aspects of the public sector and will be led by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Good progress has been made, and we are on target to launch the review in spring 2002.
It would not be practical or lawful for me to place contentious planning applications on hold pending the outcome of the review. Once all material planning information relating to an application has been received and considered, my Department is under a legal obligation to determine that application. I have no powers to hold applications — contentious or otherwise — in such circumstances.
The Member may also be aware that article 33 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 gives applicants in all but major cases designated under article 31 of that Order the right to appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission on the grounds that his or her application has not been determined by my Department within the timescales laid down.


I thank the Minister for his answer, even though it may not be the one that I wanted. Does the Minister at least agree that his experiences as a local councillor show that the current planning system is chaotic? The review of local government could consider how to ensure that all planning cases could be considered on their merits. Individual planning applications should be dealt with according to the needs of the local area and the residents, which is not happening at present.


Our time is up. I ask the Minister to give his reply in writing.

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Donovan McClelland: Question 2, in the name of Mrs Courtney, has been withdrawn.

European Union Strategic Policy Document

Mr Edwin Poots: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister when the strategic policy document on the European Union will be available.
(AQO 500/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: I will answer today’s questions on behalf of the First Minister and as Deputy First Minister, with Mr Trimble’s prior agreement.
A paper setting out a framework for the development for Northern Ireland of a co-ordinated, cohesive and strategic approach to the European Union is being finalised with Departments. It is anticipated that the paper will be considered by the Executive early in the new year, prior to discussion with the Committee of the Centre.

Mr Edwin Poots: The Department’s own corporate plan suggested that the strategic policy document would be ready in July 2001. In response to the Committee of the Centre, the Department indicated that the document would be ready by autumn 2001. We are now told that it will be ready in January 2002, almost six months behind schedule. Can the Minister assure the House that the document will be ready by that date? Does the delay show that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is not taking European Union interests seriously enough?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister takes European interests very seriously. The strategy paper is designed to enable the whole Executive, not just my Department, to pursue Northern Ireland interests effectively, by establishing overall priorities for European work. That will assist the development of the policy priorities set out in the Programme for Government.
If we are serious about using this strategy as a means of ensuring a co-ordinated and cohesive effort across all Departments, we must ensure their full involvement. That in itself has been a complex process. Departments must deal with different issues and different levels of activity. It is inevitable that delays will occur in the drawing up of a strategy to cover every Department. Departments face other pressures and distractions in addition to this paper.

Mr Ivan Davis: What preparations are being made to help businesses prepare for the introduction of the euro in the member states?

Mr Mark Durkan: Preparations for the euro will depend on the likelihood of its introduction here soon. The Administration have two levels of interest in the matter. First, a ministerial group is meeting in London to deal with administrative issues that the introduction of the euro might present for the Government. We are also examining the impact of the euro on businesses. That will involve studying the impact of our status as a non-euro area that shares a land border with an area where the euro is being used in trade. That involves the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, in particular, because it deals most directly with businesses.

Sellafield

Mr George Savage: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if it has had any approaches from the Government of the Irish Republic on the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield.
(AQO534/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: The matter was raised at the summit meeting of the British-Irish Council on 30 November, as I said this morning. The Irish Government and the Isle of Man Administration are taking the lead in examining the issue of radioactive waste from Sellafield. The Administrations are preparing a paper on this, which will be discussed at an environment sectoral meeting. The Irish Government have not made any approaches to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister regarding the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

Mr George Savage: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister know that last Tuesday, the Minister of the Environment told the House that he had not been consulted by the British Government on the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel plant at Sellafield.
Does he find it acceptable that the United Kingdom Government should take such action over a matter that affects the vital interests of a territory under the authority of a UK regional Government without any prior consultation? After all, Sellafield is closer to Belfast than it is to Sheffield or Birmingham.

Mr Mark Durkan: I note fully the concerns raised by the Member. I conveyed the cross-party concern that has been expressed in the Assembly about Sellafield and, in particular, the development of the MOX plant, at the meeting of the British-Irish Council. I emphasised the need for information and real consultation about such developments. I will be happy to convey the Member’s views in any future discussion on the issue.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: The Irish Government, and others, must be congratulated on their determination to use every means at their disposal to stop the activities at Sellafield. In view of the Assembly’s unanimous decision last Tuesday to ask for the closure of Sellafield and the withdrawal of any licence for the MOX activities, can the Deputy First Minister assure the House that his office and the Department of the Environment will take seriously the potential for disaster as a result of terrorist action or human error? Will the Executive co-operate as far as possible with the Southern Government and others to solve the Sellafield problem?

Mr Mark Durkan: As I said, the matter will be discussed further in the environment sector of the British-Irish Council. The Executive will determine the precise attitude that we will take on some of the detailed issues, but the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is alert to the concerns that have been expressed in the Chamber, not only last week, but on previous occasions. My Department will work with other Departments that have a particular interest in such environmental and health considerations.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I call Mr Mick Murphy.

Mr Mick Murphy: My question has already been answered.

British–Irish Council

Mr Eddie McGrady: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister when the next meeting of the British-Irish Council will take place, and what will be the items for discussion.
(AQO 509/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: The next British-Irish Council summit meeting is scheduled for April 2002 in Jersey, and the main topic of discussion will be the knowledge economy. The full agenda has not yet been finalised.

Mr Eddie McGrady: My intended supplementary question on Sellafield has already been answered. I urge the Deputy First Minister to put four issues on the agenda at the next British-Irish Council meeting: reprocessing; the operation of obsolete plants; discharges; and storage. I also urge him to ensure that the relationship between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our Department of the Environment is put on a proper basis. We need proactive, co-ordinated action to represent the views of the Assembly on licensing and the continuation of Sellafield.

Mr Mark Durkan: I acknowledge the Member’s long-standing and active interest in the issue. Many of the views that he has voiced down the years are now reflected more widely in these islands.
The environment sector of the British-Irish Council will meet again. The Irish Government and the Isle of Man Government will lead the work on radioactive waste and Sellafield. We will ensure that our response to any papers issued by the Irish Government or the Isle of Man Government incorporates the four areas that Mr McGrady has identified.

Homelessness

Mr Ken Robinson: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if Executive programme funds have been earmarked to deal with the issue of homelessness, especially during the Christmas season.
(AQO 535/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: Homelessness is a year- round problem, and it is important that none of us forgets those who do not have anywhere to call home. Obviously, at Christmas those less fortunate than ourselves, including the homeless, are rightly prominent in our thoughts.
The Executive recognise that housing support is particularly important for those who are homeless, not least at this time of the year. In order to reduce the plight of the homeless, the Housing Executive is spending approximately £11·5 million each year on homelessness services. In addition, the Housing Executive launched a review of its homelessness strategy and services in September 2001, with the purpose of improving services to the homeless in Northern Ireland. Consultation finishes at the end of this month, and the review is due to be completed in March 2002.
Regarding Executive programme funds, no bids for allocations aimed specifically at tackling the problem of homelessness were received in the funding round I announced to the Assembly on Monday 3 December. We should not forget the valuable work done by a range of voluntary organisations for the homeless, and we take this opportunity to commend them for their year-round efforts to help the less fortunate.

Mr Ken Robinson: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. However, do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the magnitude of the problem of homelessness manifests itself particularly at Christmas? Funding was allocated last year to deal specifically with the homeless at Christmas; will that be the case in the current year?

Mr Mark Durkan: Last year, following discussion between the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Minister for Social Development, the Department for Social Development was able to announce a special allocation of funding to help those organisations and shelters providing particular measures at Christmas for the homeless. I can confirm that the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the current Minister for Social Development again discussed the point last week. I can assure the Member that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will encourage any measure this year similar to that which came forward last year. As was the case last year, any announcements would be for the Minister for Social Development to make.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: My question has already been answered to some extent. I realise that the Deputy First Minister is somewhat hard-pressed with so many responsibilities today, which must be difficult. However, I would like him to give some thought to the question that I raised earlier in connection with the Executive programme funds. If homelessness were a priority — and we all know the terrible figures that have been recently released — would it be eligible for funding in the coming year under the Executive programme funds? Under normal policy, and indeed under TSN, is it not possible to categorise homelessness as a priority?

Mr Mark Durkan: There would certainly be no grounds for anybody to say that homelessness, or measures to improve support to those who are homeless, would be ineligible for the Executive programme funds. Considering the range of funds available, one could possibly see bids in relation to some developments being considered under the social inclusion fund. Equally, certain measures aimed at directing some new services or measures to the problems of homeless people could be considered under the new directions fund. Nothing in the criteria for the Executive programme funds would rule out any such bid.

Mr Jim Shannon: Does the Minister agree that homelessness is only part of the problem? According to figures that were published last week, in one year alone more than 2,000 people died as a result of the poverty trap. What steps will be taken to address that problem? Will the voluntary organisations receive financial assistance to ensure that they can serve the homeless and the many others in that category?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Members to ensure that their supplementary questions are relevant to the question on the Order Paper.

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member’s question is not directly related to housing, but the issue he raised remains in the purview of the Department for Social Development. That Department is responsible for introducing measures to improve support, not least through the community and voluntary sector, for those who are most afflicted by poverty and who depend on benefits. Given the correlation between poverty and homelessness, the Department for Social Development is best placed to deal with those issues.

Fireworks

Mr David Ford: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in the light of the debate on fireworks on Tuesday 8 May 2001, if it will give details of any discussions it has had with the fireworks safety group.
(AQO 510/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: On 8 May, during the debate on the motion on fireworks, the Assembly called on the Executive to establish an interdepartmental working group in conjunction with the NIO to examine concerns about fireworks. After the debate we wrote to Minister of State Jane Kennedy to alert her to the Assembly’s concerns, and a copy of our letter was sent to every interested Department. The Northern Ireland fireworks safety group already includes representatives from the Department of Education, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Housing Executive and the NIO. It provides an appropriate mechanism for interdepartmental work on the issue. The issues raised by the Assembly will be discussed at today’s meeting of the fireworks safety group.

Mr David Ford: What an interesting coincidence of timing that the group should meet today. The meeting follows another autumn during which pensioners and others in Northern Ireland were subjected to the terror caused by fireworks, without anything’s being done. I am not sure whether Jane Kennedy has experienced the effects of many fireworks during her stays in Hillsborough, but I have no doubt that Members of —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Is there a question?

Mr David Ford: There is always a question.

Mr Donovan McClelland: This is not an opportunity to make speeches or statements.

Mr David Ford: Now that the group is getting round to discussing, in December, an Assembly debate that took place in May, will the Minister use his officers at the NIO and the Executive Ministers to ensure that next autumn will be free of terror caused by fireworks for pensioners in Northern Ireland?

Mr Mark Durkan: The group will continue to work not just to reflect Members’ concerns, but to meet the responsibilities of the Departments. It is an appropriate way to deal with an issue that is not straightforward and that does not fall to the devolved Administration alone. There should be no undue inference that the timing of today’s meeting of the group is not a true coincidence.

Executive Committee Meetings

Mr John Dallat: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what action can be taken to safeguard the rights of those affected by the continuing refusal of the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development to attend Executive Committee meetings.
(AQO 540/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: Under the Belfast Agreement and section 18 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Northern Ireland Minister shall not take up office until he has affirmed the terms of the Pledge of Office. The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development have taken a pledge to fulfil the duties of their ministerial office. Although they were prepared to take up ministerial office, they have so far refused all invitations to participate in Executive meetings to discuss policy and legislative matters that affect their Departments. They have also refused to contribute to strategic discussions about resources and the preparation of the Executive’s Programme for Government, which is to be endorsed by the Assembly.
Although they have not attended Executive meetings in person, both Ministers have complied with the requirements of the ministerial code by seeking the Executive’s agreement to their proposals relating to the Programme for Government, the Budget, legislation and major policy areas that impact on other departmental programmes. The fact that they comment in writing about papers to be discussed by the Executive indicates their confidence in the Ministers who attend Executive meetings to make decisions that affect their Departments’ programmes.
The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development have permitted their senior officials to make presentations on policy areas that concern the Executive. Despite the non-attendance of these Ministers at Executive meetings, the Executive have been able to ensure that important strategic and policy decisions are taken to enable those two Departments to function effectively so that the people of Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged by any political actions.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the Minister’s upbeat reply to my question. Would the Minister agree that in any other organisation, members of the management who continually absented themselves from board meetings could expect penalties to be imposed on them? Is it reasonable that these Ministers should continue to enjoy the luxuries of power without the responsibility of Executive decisions?

Mr Mark Durkan: I have already said that the Ministers have taken, and are in compliance with, the Pledge of Office. In declining to attend the Executive, they deny themselves a contribution to the Executive’s wider thinking. However, there is no basis in current provisions on which we might exercise sanctions. Clearly, it is important for all Ministers to take the fullest opportunity available to them to represent the needs of their Departments and the insights that they have as Ministers, at all levels — including in the Executive.

Mr David McClarty: Can the Deputy First Minister tell us whether any key decisions on matters that are the responsibility of these Ministers have been progressed through the Executive in their absence?

Mr Mark Durkan: As I indicated earlier, in the absence of, for example, the Minister for Regional Development, the Executive in their deliberations on the Programme for Government and the Budget have taken strategic decisions on key infrastructure issues that will affect the people of Northern Ireland. An increased allocation for roads next year is an example. We set aside £40 million over a number of years to ensure that the trans-European network from Larne to the border south of Newry is developed coherently. The "dualling" of the proposed Newry to Dundalk road is also part of that, making a significant contribution to cross-border trade and mobility. That investment should also strengthen the competitiveness of ports.
In line with the commitment in the Programme for Government, the Executive also took the decision to fully fund free travel for the elderly. That took effect from 1 October 2001. The Executive took that decision on the basis of proposals made by the Minister of Finance and Personnel with the encouragement of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Executive have shown sensitivity in the way in which we deal with budgets, the monitoring rounds and Executive programme funds. We are recognising the needs of programmes in every Department, including those whose Ministers do not attend Executive meetings.

North/South Ministerial Council

Mr Ivan Davis: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the recent meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council.
(AQO 533/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: Earlier today I made a report to the Assembly on behalf of all the Ministers who attended the North/South Ministerial Council meeting that was held on 30 November. A copy of the communiqué issued following the meeting has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Davis indicated that he did not wish to ask a supplementary question.

Review of Local Government

Mr Conor Murphy: 9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline how the review of public administration will impact on the review of local government; and to make a statement.
(AQO 524/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: Good governance requires systems of regional and local government that complement each other. We are conscious of the contribution made by councils to building local partnerships and embracing new challenges in areas such as economic development and community relations. As the Minister of the Environment told the Assembly on 12 November, the organisation of local government services will be considered in the context of the review of public administration.
The review, which will cover all aspects of the public sector, not just local government, will be launched in the spring. The Executive are working to finalise details of the review, and we are confident that we are on target. We hope to be in a position to provide the Assembly with draft terms of reference early in the new year.

Mr Conor Murphy: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that these two reviews need to be dovetailed? It is difficult to see how public administration could be reorganised without taking account of the future size, geographical area and makeup of local councils. We have had statements from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on progress on the review of public administration, but we have heard very little on the review of local government. Does the Minister agree that it is necessary that these go hand-in- hand? Is he aware that the review of local government is being tailored to match the review of public administration?

Mr Mark Durkan: The First Minister, the Minister of the Environment and I have reflected that the review of local government will proceed in the context of the wider review of public administration. We need to achieve a system of governance that allows regional government to play a part in developing policies and delivering programmes that are effective in meeting the needs of people. Similarly, it should also allow local government not just to deliver local government programmes, but to contribute to good regional government by delivering the local services and policy programmes that they are best placed to deliver. We can apply positive lessons and experiences from partnership working, not just in the European programmes, but in the different sectors as well. In the review of public administration we should not take a single tier of government in isolation, and no tier of government will drive the review.

Mrs Joan Carson: Does the Minister appreciate the concerns about uncertainty in local government that the forthcoming review is causing, and will he tell us how they will be addressed during the review?

Mr Mark Durkan: We recognise the difficulties posed by the pending review and the uncertainty that the Member has described. We are anxious to do what we can to ensure that there is no disruption to public services or to those who deliver them during the review. To that end, we are drawing up a comprehensive communications strategy to ensure that, throughout the process, information flows to everyone who may be affected. My Colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has informed the Executive of district councils’ concerns, and those are appreciated. In anticipation of the review, some councils are having difficulties with forward planning and managing resources, including filling new posts and staff vacancies. Completing the review and implementing its outcome will take time. During that period we will not be able to ameliorate all the concerns involved. It is accepted that review is needed, but we must proceed in a thoughtful and effective way, and that coherence will do most to deal with the uncertainty.

Mr Peter Weir: Given that the review of public administration and the review of local government were first announced well over a year ago, and given that we are only to learn their terms of reference next spring, will the Minister say in which decade he expects the review to be completed?

Mr Mark Durkan: The review will be launched next spring, and there will be consultation on the terms of reference to be published early in the new year. No doubt Members will have views, not just on the terms of reference, but also on the approach and structure. It is important to get the review under way so that we can deal with the issues that need to be addressed.
I look forward to the launch of the review in spring 2002, and the delivery of useful material for us to consider in order to progress this matter throughout the year.

North/South Ministerial Council (Premises)

Mr John Fee: 10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what progress has been made to obtain permanent offices in Armagh for the North/South Ministerial Council.
(AQO 520/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: Although the joint secretariat is operating effectively from temporary accommodation in Armagh, work is continuing to identify and procure a new permanent headquarters. A schedule of accommodation requirements for a new permanent headquarters has been drawn up, and it is currently being developed and evaluated by the professional staff of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s Construction Service and by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin. That evaluation will include an investment appraisal of options, which include a new build, and also the possibility of refurbishing part of the former Armagh Prison. The evaluation process will take several months, after which the various options will be put before the relevant Departments, North and South, for consideration prior to submission to the North/South Ministerial Council for approval.

Mr John Fee: Will the Deputy First Minister accept that there is a certain amount of frustration that that prestigious facility has not yet found a permanent home in the city of Armagh? Can he give the House a commitment that the outstanding issues will be resolved before the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Please be brief, Mr Durkan.

Mr Mark Durkan: The secretariat is located in Armagh and is committed to that location. The evaluation of permanent accomodation is under way and has to follow normal procedures. I anticipate that that evaluation will be concluded by mid-2002.

Regional Development

Mr Donovan McClelland: Question 9 in the name of Mr Byrne has been withdrawn.

Dromore Underpass

Mr Edwin Poots: 1. asked the Minister for Regional Development what progress has been made on the proposals for an underpass to the A1 dual carriageway at the Hillsborough Road junction, Dromore.
(AQO 499/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: My Department’s Roads Service published the necessary environmental statement in February 2001, and the direction and stopping-up orders in July 2001, in order to progress the junction improvements proposal on the A1 at Hillsborough Road, Dromore. Following those publications, several objections were received, and despite the best efforts of Roads Service officials those objections have not been resolved. Therefore, public inquiries will have to take place. It is hoped that they will commence as early as possible in the new year. The start date for the scheme will depend on the outcome of those inquiries and the availability of funding at that time.

Mr Edwin Poots: The inhabitants of Dromore, and those who regularly use that junction, will be disappointed that a public inquiry must take place. An 84-year-old woman was recently killed crossing the junction; it is a death trap. Will the Minister tell the House how many objections were received, and the nature of those objections? I understand that several of them were environmental objections that would not stand up to scrutiny. Were that the case, a public inquiry would not be necessary.

Mr Peter Robinson: I understand the frustration of the people of Dromore who want the scheme to proceed. That frustration is shared by my Department’s Roads Service, which is equally eager to advance the scheme. However, the House recognises that individuals have rights, and it is important that people put forward a material objection to any roads proposal so that it can be thoroughly considered. If an objection cannot be dealt with through discussions with Roads Service officials, the matter should rightly be heard at an inquiry. In this case, there will be inquiries into a number of the features, and not simply the environmental statement or the direction and stopping-up orders.
There were four objections. I have to say to my Colleague that, although he and I may not consider some of the objections to be well founded, I am not in the position to set them aside on that basis. If something will have a material impact on someone’s property and the matter cannot be resolved, there has to be a public inquiry. That is the case in this instance.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. When will the carriageway on the A1 as it passes Dromore — which has been closed for the past 18 months — be reopened?

Mr Peter Robinson: The Department for Regional Development has a number of proposals relating to the A1. The A1 is a key road in the Province’s infrastructure, and the Department will ensure that there is no undue delay in the opening of any road or the improvements on it. The Roads Service proposes to construct a grade separation junction between the A1 and the Rathfriland Road at Banbridge. The principal objective of that scheme will be to improve road safety at that junction. The estimated cost of that scheme will be about £2·5 million. That is in the Department’s preparation pool, subject to finance. There have been some objections to the scheme, but the Department is doing its best to address the concerns of the objectors. However, the ultimate aim of the Roads Service is to have Northern Ireland’s roads open and operating fully.

Northern Ireland Bus Fleet

Mr Derek Hussey: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the number of vehicles in Northern Ireland’s bus fleet that are (a) under two years old; (b) under five years old; and (c) older than five years.
(AQO 502/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: Translink has advised that it has a total bus fleet comprising 1,459 vehicles: 1,195 of them are in service with Ulsterbus, and 264 are in service with Citybus; 99 Ulsterbus vehicles and 44 Citybus vehicles are under two years old; 132 Ulsterbus vehicles and 78 Citybus vehicles are over two years old but under five years old; and 964 Ulsterbus vehicles and 142 Citybus vehicles are older than 5 years.

Mr Derek Hussey: I thank the Minister for those comprehensive figures. I am sure that he, like myself, is mindful of the sad state of deterioration into which Northern Ireland’s railway stock was allowed to fall under direct rule, aggravated of course by terrorist action, community strife and reprehensible, wanton vandalism. Can the Minister assure the House that he supports, and will continue to support, a rolling programme of replacement for Northern Ireland’s public bus fleet, so that a similar deterioration does not take place under his stewardship?

Mr Peter Robinson: I give an absolute assurance that I support that. Indeed, in the Department for Regional Development’s present programme approximately £1·7 million has been allocated for new buses in the current year and in the indicative figures for next financial year. The Member will be aware that about 50% of that funding for buses comes from the Department, and the other 50% comes from Translink. That gives a total of £3·4 million, which would purchase only about 28 new buses a year.
If the Member had asked about the replacement age of vehicles, I would have informed him that the Department believes that about 256 of Translink’s vehicles will be due for replacement by next March. The Department expects there to be a replacement age of 18 years for buses and 12 years for coaches. Therefore, while 256 vehicles need to be replaced by next March, we have a budget that will allow the replacement of only 28 buses. The House will therefore see that we are likely to drag further behind as time goes on unless there is a considerable uplift in the amount of money available for an increase in new fleet.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: The Minister indicated that over 1,000 buses are over five years old. Can he give any further details of the bus age beyond five years?

Mr Peter Robinson: I rather threw out the figures, so it was probably hard for the House to assimilate them quickly. There were 1,106 buses in total that were five years or older. That represents 76% of the fleet. However, there are 838 vehicles that are ten years or older, and that represents 57% of the fleet. As I indicated in reply to the earlier question, 256 of those are past the replacement age of 12 years for coaches and 18 years for buses. The Member might also be interested to know that the oldest Ulsterbus is 23 years old.

Senior Citizen Concession Passes

Mrs Iris Robinson: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the number of senior citizen free fare passes issued over the past three months; and to make a statement.
(AQO 513/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: In the last three months, 12,621 senior citizen concession passes were issued. This represents an increase of 450% compared with the number of passes issued during the same three months last year. I am pleased to report the positive response that my free travel initiative has received. Free travel is enabling many older people to enjoy the benefits of enhanced mobility and is making an important contribution to addressing social needs in the community.

Mrs Iris Robinson: As a member of Castlereagh Borough Council who piloted the free-fares scheme I welcome the increased uptake. It justifies the implementation of our party’s policies, and I congratulate the Minister for pursuing this objective to a successful outcome.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Mrs Robinson that it is the opportunity to ask a question.

Mrs Iris Robinson: I will be accused, whatever I do.
The Minister will know that many Members have been approached by war-disabled pensioners under the age of 65 who are seeking the opportunity to take part in the free-fares scheme. Has the Minister considered the special case for their inclusion in the scheme?

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure the House that that was not a planted question. Of course, I find little to disagree with in the comments that were made in the Member’s question.
Just as in Castlereagh when the pilot scheme was carried out, the significant increase is not just a case of those who are taking passes out, which was what the original question was about. I am also told that Translink’s figures for the first month since the introduction of free travel show increases in the number of older people travelling to be in the region of 28% on Ulsterbus, up to 50% on Citybus and 35% on Northern Ireland Railways. That is a considerable uptake from senior citizens.
With regard to the point about war-disabled pensioners, they have always been considered as a special category as far as concessionary fares are concerned. They along with senior citizens over 65 enjoyed the concession of 50% up until the point when the over 65s were able to get free fares. Therefore war-disabled pensioners currently benefit from half-fare travel on public transport. I believe that they ought to be treated in the same way as retirement pensioners over 65 years of age. Consequently, I am proposing that war-disabled pensioners under 65 be eligible for free travel alongside registered blind people and senior citizens over 65 years of age.
The resources required for this enhancement of the concessionary fare scheme are quite modest and should not prove to be a stumbling block. The legislation requires approval by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Therefore I have written to the Minister of Finance and Personnel seeking his agreement to introduce my proposal forthwith.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister indicate whether the free- fare passes held by senior citizens entitle them to free travel on the public ferry services operated by his Department and by private companies?

Mr Peter Robinson: My Colleague, Mr Campbell, made a statement about the Strangford ferry, indicating that it would be included in the scheme. A similar statement has been made about another ferry service. If the ferry services are run by my Department, the only outstanding problem — that of the audit trail — is overcome. I am keen that free public transport, including transport on the ferries, should be enjoyed by those who are entitled to it. The problem goes beyond the ferries that are run by my Department, because the Department also funds some free fares for private operators, provided it is satisfied with their modus operandi.

Mr P J Bradley: Free passes have been collected by 12,621 people, which is good news for everyone who campaigned through the years for the scheme. That includes Newry and Mourne District Council, which also piloted the scheme.
Will free travel be introduced for people who accompany disabled or ill senior citizens who require assistance when travelling?

Mr Peter Robinson: I am happy to mention Newry and Mourne District Council, which partnered Castlereagh Borough Council in the pilot scheme. When I was involved in the Committee that supervised the pilot scheme, I got the impression that free travel means nothing unless there is an adequate bus service. That applies particularly to people living in the country, and work remains to be done to improve our rural bus service.
With regard to companions travelling with disabled people, my Colleague, Mr Campbell, indicated that the Department would examine the extension of the concessionary fare scheme over the next few months. It would be appropriate to extend the scheme to people with disabilities. Under the provisions of the Transport Act 2000, certain categories of disability receive a concessionary half-fare as a minimum in Great Britain. However, these categories are not covered by the scheme in Northern Ireland. That matter will receive urgent attention. Whether the scheme will extend to those who accompany disabled people will be a matter for consideration in the review.

Mr Jim Wilson: It is interesting that the DUP has attempted to claim credit for free bus passes. Had the DUP had its way, there would have been no Executive to introduce free bus passes.
Further to the Minister’s reply to the Member for Strangford (Mrs I Robinson), is he aware that some transport services that are used extensively by senior citizens have been reduced? My home town of Ballyclare is an example: the Saturday service has been removed completely. Why is free travel handed out with one hand and the bus service taken away with the other?

Mr Peter Robinson: I am not sure what kind of a Province the Member thinks we might have where there would be no Executive. Of course there would be an Executive, but it would not be a home-grown Executive. It was a Northern Ireland Office Minister who, after much pressure, agreed to have a pilot scheme for free fares. The scheme would have progressed whether it had been a Northern Ireland Executive or a UK Executive dealing with the matter. I am content that the DUP’s manifesto proposal for free fares has now come to fruition, and the public appreciates that.
Transport services are an operational matter. There are some routes in my own constituency where services have been reduced. I made enquiries about the situation with Translink — I am sure Jim Wilson has done the same thing — and I was told that the reductions were introduced because of service usage. If the Member will give me specific details of the case that he has in mind, I shall take up the matter with Translink.

Translink Buses and Trains

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the number of trains and buses owned by Translink that are currently in operational use.
(AQO 521/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: Translink has advised that, in addition to its two Enterprise-class rolling stock, which are used between Belfast and Dublin, it currently has a total operational fleet of 28 train sets. The fleet comprises nine three-car 450 castle class and 19 class 80 sets. Translink also expects to add eight-car train, which formerly operated on the Gatwick Express route, to its fleet shortly. By early 2002, Translink should, therefore, have a total operational fleet of 31 sets.
Translink’s bus fleet comprises, as I said earlier, 1,459 buses, 1,195 of which are in service with Ulsterbus and 264 in service with Citybus. Not every train set or vehicle can be operational at the same time given Translink’s rolling programme of repairs and servicing.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I was pleased to hear, in response to Mrs Robinson’s question, that the Minister is considering extending the scheme to include some type of transport concession for those with disabilities. However, it does not matter what concessions are made if transport is not accessible in the first place. Will the Minister tell us how many buses and trains are accessible to people with disabilities, especially in rural areas?

Mr Peter Robinson: I agree with the Member’s point. I am glad that my Department’s bid for funding for buses is gaining me so many friends and supporters. As the Member might expect, only the newest buses will be suitably adapted to accommodate those with disabilities. I stress the point further by saying that the average age of the bus fleet in Northern Ireland is 13 years. The average age in Great Britain is eight years, and it is 4·7 years in the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, there is considerable catching up to be done. If we are to have buses that are accessible for the disabled, we must improve and renew the bus fleet regularly — every year — at a significantly higher rate than we have been doing thus far.

Mr Jim Shannon: Will the Minister tell us how Northern Ireland’s trains and buses compare to those in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland? Will he also confirm the cost Translink has incurred as a result of vandalism? What percentage of its budget goes towards trying to address that spiralling cost and drain on its resources?

Mr Peter Robinson: A couple of weeks ago, I noticed a report that said that the United Kingdom was falling dramatically behind the rest of the civilised world as far as roads and transport were concerned. As I said in response to an earlier question, we are falling behind the rest of the United Kingdom in that regard.
I am informed that the average age of the Republic of Ireland’s Expressway coach fleet is between four and five years. However, the average age of its city service fleet is around 2·5 years. That is a remarkably new fleet. The Transport Minister in the United Kingdom has set clear targets for an average age of eight years. At present, Northern Ireland’s average is 13 years. However, we are asking for buses that are 18 years old and coaches that are 12 years old to be replaced. We cannot meet that target even under present Budget arrangements. No doubt, increased bids must be made to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
I hope that I can draw on the support of the House for a successful outcome to those bids. With regard to the Member’s comments about vandalism, the Department faces an uphill struggle with public transport in Northern Ireland. It is a disgrace that valuable resources are being wasted to repair damage caused by vandalism rather than being used to upgrade and update the fleet.

Mr Roy Beggs: I refer to the Minister’s earlier answer, in which he confirmed that the refurbished Gatwick Express trains could be entering into service in Northern Ireland early in 2002. Will those trains be utilised on the busiest commuter routes, such as the east Antrim line, in order to benefit the maximum number of commuters and further encourage the use of public transport?

Mr Peter Robinson: The House will be aware that the Department recently conveyed to Translink its approval for the purchase of 23 new trains at a total cost of £87 million. The tendering process has been completed. The three tenders received are currently being evaluated. Translink hopes to be able to award the contract to a supplier in early 2002. Delivery of the first batch of 12 train sets for testing is envisaged by February 2003, and delivery of the remaining 11 sets by September 2003.
Where those train sets are used when they become available to Translink is an operational matter. I hope that they would be used widely across the Province and that everybody would see the benefits of the new trains. Consistent with the regional development strategy and, I expect, the regional transportation strategy that will soon be published, in Northern Ireland we are tasked with encouraging people to use public transport. That will not be possible unless public transport is upgraded and people are offered comfortable and regular services.

A32 Dromore/Irvinestown Road

Mr Barry McElduff: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail what plans he has to upgrade the A32 Dromore/Irvinestown road.
(AQO 497/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: Roads Service has plans to carry out an improvement scheme on the A32 between Dromore and Irvinestown at Lettergash. The scheme, costing some £270,000, involves the widening and resurfacing of the carriageway over approximately 600 metres. The works are programmed to start early next month. Roads Service also has plans to undertake two other improvement schemes at Lisdoo and Corlaghdergan on this section of the road.
The scheme at Lisdoo, which is currently being designed, involves the vertical realignment and resurfacing of the carriageway over approximately 900 metres. That scheme will cost somewhere in the region of £500,000 to £600,000. Subject to the acquisition of land and the availability of funds, Roads Service plans to commence the work towards the end of the 2002-03 financial year.
The scheme at Corlaghdergan involves the widening and resurfacing of the carriageway over approximately 700 metres. The work will cost around £350,000. Subject to the availability of funds, Roads Service plans to start that scheme in 2003-04.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer and for the details of the schemes.
I ask the Minister to consider major capital funding for the A32 in the future, as well as for the present schemes that have been outlined. The A32 is used extensively by ambulances and cars ferrying patients, expectant mothers, visitors and others between two hospitals — the Erne Hospital in Enniskillen, and the Tyrone County Hospital in Omagh. I would like that road to be accorded greater priority for major capital funding in the future.

Mr Peter Robinson: People in Tyrone and Fermanagh have expressed concern about travel times and delays on that route, as certain health services are currently provided only at the Erne Hospital in Enniskillen or the Tyrone County Hospital in Omagh. The recent Hayes review of acute hospitals recommended Enniskillen as the location for a new acute hospital for the region. It is not for me to say whether that recommendation will be accepted, but the Department will undoubtedly continue to review the situation as and when that decision is taken.
The Department requires more funding for Roads Service to make further improvements to any road in Northern Ireland. As far as the A32 is concerned, the three schemes that I listed show that we recognise that as a priority. I hope that those schemes can proceed. If more funding becomes available, the Department will consider other schemes in the area. My predecessor, Mr Campbell, wrote to all Members in September asking if there was any scheme that they particularly wanted to be included in the 10-year forward programme; that was followed by a letter from Colin James, the chief executive of Roads Service. Perhaps surprisingly, there was no correspondence from the hon Member on that.

Newry Bypass

Mr Conor Murphy: 6. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline any improvement works planned for the Newry bypass.
(AQO 511/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: Roads Service has already carried out several measures to improve road safety on the Newry bypass. In addition, Roads Service proposes to ban traffic from turning right off the bypass into Carnagat Road. Subject to the making of the necessary legislation, it is hoped to introduce this measure in 2003-04.
In April 2001, Roads Service commissioned consultants to carry out a feasibility study to identify options for upgrading to dual carriageway standard the section of the A1 between Beech Hill and Cloghogue roundabout. As part of the study, the consultants will consider several options, including the possible improvement and upgrading of the existing route, which includes the Newry bypass, and a possible new route from Beech Hill to join the Newry bypass near the Cloghogue roundabout.

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up. If the Minister has any more information for the Member, he should give it in writing.

Environment

Ms Jane Morrice: Question 10, in the name of Mr Tommy Gallagher, has been transferred to the Minister for Regional Development and will receive a written answer.

Planning Applications (Wind Farms)

Mrs Joan Carson: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment what special considerations are taken when planning applications are received for the erection of wind farms.
(AQO 523/01)

Mr Sam Foster: All applications for wind farm development are considered under existing planning regulations and policies, taking account of representations received following normal advertising and consultation procedures.
The main policy guidance in this area is contained in ‘A planning strategy for rural Northern Ireland’, which states that all proposals for wind farms will be assessed in respect of their implications for the visual, ecological and historical landscapes. The implications for agriculture and the safety and amenity of local residents are also considered. It also makes clear that permission will not be granted in any location where there would be a seriously detrimental impact on the amenity of an area of outstanding natural beauty or any area that has been designated for its conservation, scientific, archaeological or historic interest.
Consultations on wind farm proposals normally include the environmental health department of the relevant local council, Environment and Heritage Service, Water Service, Roads Service, the Ministry of Defence and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Under the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, my Department may require an environmental statement where a proposal for a wind farm involves the installation of more than two turbines or where the hub height of any turbine or the height of any other structure is greater than 15 metres. Such a statement provides my Department with detailed information about the impact that a proposal may have on the environment.

Mrs Joan Carson: Is the Minister satisfied with the situation in Fermanagh and South Tyrone with regard to the proliferation of wind farms? Does he agree that a skyline of wind turbines will detract from and spoil the natural beauty of Fermanagh, especially?

Mr Sam Foster: The Member’s question comes very close to my heart, and I thank her for it. Coming from Fermanagh, I am well aware of its natural beauty. It is the jewel in the Province’s crown. Several planning applications for wind farms in Fermanagh are being assessed by the Department of the Environment. The assessment, in appropriate circumstances, requires an environmental statement to evaluate the environmental impact of proposals.
All proposals for such development are assessed in respect of their implications for the visual, ecological and historical landscapes, and the implications for agriculture, the safety of local residents and the amenity of the area. I recognise, however, that wind farms have the potential to affect landscapes adversely. All practical measures should be taken to avoid or minimise that, and such measures will be included in any environmental statement required by my Department for such proposals.
It should, however, be pointed out that wind farms provide an alternative form of energy that does not involve the consumption of fossil fuels and the production of greenhouse gases. They do, therefore, deliver some environmental benefits.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: The Minister said that he would not allow wind farms to be set up in areas of outstanding natural beauty. In view of that, can he explain to the House why, on an application that came before Ards Borough Council, his Department allowed a small wind farm to be erected on the Lough Shore Road in Portaferry? That wind farm sits almost alongside Strangford Lough, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Despite my objections and concerns at the time, the Department approved the application.

Mr Sam Foster: I admit that the Member’s question is very good, but each case is considered on its own merits. As I said earlier, under current regulations the Department of the Environment may require an environmental statement where a proposal for a wind farm involves the installation of more than two turbines. Each case is assessed very thoroughly and is taken on its own merits. In some areas the applications are refused, and in some they are approved. I assure Mr McCarthy that those matters are not taken lightly, and applications are examined very closely and adequately.

Tachographs

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 2. asked the Minister of the Environment what plans he has to enforce the use of tachographs in the haulage industry.
(AQO 537/01)

Mr Sam Foster: Tachograph enforcement is required in Northern Ireland under the Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996, which implement the requirements of the relevant European regulations. Enforcement is undertaken by the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (DVTA) and by the police. When vehicles are presented for the annual roadworthiness test, DVTA examiners check for the presence of a tachograph and whether it is working, appropriately calibrated and sealed. Compliance checks on tachograph charts on heavy goods vehicles and buses are carried out at the roadside and by random visits to premises to ensure that drivers comply with the requirements on driving and rest periods. The European Directive requires each member state to check a minimum of 1% of charts each year for compliance. In Northern Ireland that equates to over 48,000 checks. The DVTA has a target to carry out 20,000 of those. The remainder are carried out by the police as the main enforcement agency for tachograph charts. Last year, the Department of the Environment initiated enforcement proceedings in 397 cases, and 287 of those led to prosecution. As a result, fines totalling over £33,000 were levied on operators and drivers.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Perhaps the Department of the Environment should look a little more closely at the issue, because some drivers are driving for longer than the allotted time — some are driving for 16 hours a day. Indeed, some companies blacklist drivers who will not drive the extended hours. Can the Minister look into that, please?

Mr Sam Foster: I thank the Member for the points that she made. I assure her that my Department takes these matters seriously. The DVTA and the police are the relevant enforcement agencies. They carry out checks to ensure that drivers discharge their responsibilities properly by using tachographs in accordance with the statutory requirements, by not exceeding daily and fortnightly driving periods and by taking daily and weekly rest periods. Checks are carried out at operators’ premises, as well as at the roadside.
To comply with EU Directive 88/599/EEC, each member state — and this includes Northern Ireland — must examine a minimum number of charts each year for compliance, calculated each year in accordance with the Directive. When vehicles are presented for the annual vehicle roadworthiness test, DVTA examiners check for the presence of a tachograph and whether it is working, appropriately calibrated and sealed.

Road Safety Campaign

Mr David McClarty: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment to give his assessment of the success of his road safety campaign.
(AQO 505/01)

Mr Sam Foster: The combined efforts of local road safety departments and agencies, including the police, have contributed to a significant reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Road fatalities are now at about half the level they were in the 1970s. There were approximately 4,000 fewer deaths and serious injuries in the period from 1989-2000 than if numbers had continued at the 1989 level.
Nevertheless, the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads remains totally unacceptable. Since devolution, I have successfully obtained additional resources to double the number of road safety education officers to work with schools, and I have substantially increased the budget for road safety advertising, resulting in new campaigns and additional airtime.
It is gratifying to see that those campaigns, supplemented by police enforcement, are having a positive impact. For example, with increased seat belt wearing and improved road user attitudes, there have been 137 road deaths to date this year, compared to 155 for the same period last year. That reduction is very welcome but, as recent events show, more needs to be done.
I have also initiated a wide debate on road safety through the publication of the ‘Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010’ consultation document. Officials are considering the responses, and next spring I intend to publish a new 10-year strategic plan. However, the Government can do only so much. The key to achieving significant reductions in road casualties lies in more responsible road user behaviour. It will take the efforts of all to ensure that road users take personal responsibility for their safety and the safety of others.

Mr David McClarty: I thank the Minister for his response to that serious question. Can he confirm that, despite the recent spate of tragedies on the roads, the underlying long-term trend is downward? Will he join me in urging everyone to take special care in the run-up to Christmas so that more families are spared the terrible grief that such losses bring?

Mr Sam Foster: I thank Mr McClarty for a special question and a very special statement; it is very important at this time. The Department’s anti-drink-driving campaign was launched about 10 days ago. Sadly, that afternoon there were three deaths in one road accident. It is always difficult and sad for those who lose a loved one, but especially so coming up to Christmas.
To 9 December, 137 people have been killed on our roads this year. That compares to 155 in the same period in 2000. Although fatalities in 2000 — 171 in total— were higher than in previous years, the long- term trend has been downward, despite the increase in the volume of traffic. Twenty-five years ago, more than 300 people were killed on the roads annually; for example, 355 were killed in 1977, while the average figure for the past five years is 150.
There will always be peaks and troughs in the numbers killed on the roads, and 1999 saw the lowest number of deaths — 141 — for over 40 years. While it is encouraging that the number of deaths and serious injuries this year remains lower than last year, the recent fatalities are tragic and serve to reinforce the need for all road users to take the utmost care, especially during the festive season.
On Saturday, at Colaghty Parish Church, in my home county of Fermanagh, I attended the funeral of the young couple killed on the local roads last week. It was a sad occurrence. Three people were buried on Saturday afternoon. My heart bleeds for those who have lost loved ones in such tragic circumstances. At such times I often think of the words of Alfred Tennyson,
"But oh for the touch of a vanished hand, And the sound of a voice that is still!"

Rev William McCrea: The road safety situation is far from satisfactory. What further action does the Minister intend to take, before the Christmas period, to ensure that enough resources are made available to actively tackle drug-driving as well as drink-driving? A Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions report indicated that 18% of road accidents are attributed to drivers who have consumed drugs. That is a serious matter. What further action will the Department take over the Christmas period?

Mr Sam Foster: The Department takes the matter to heart and deals with the problem diligently. I am worried about it. One death is too many. Alcohol consumption remains a more serious problem than drugs as a cause of road deaths and serious injuries. There is no evidence yet to show that illegal drug use by drivers in Northern Ireland is a principal factor in causing crashes. I am aware of the increasing use of drugs among young drivers. Extensive research into drug-driving is being carried out in Great Britain. There are no current plans to carry out an anti-drug-driving campaign. However, I assure the Member that that will be kept under constant review.

St Joseph’s Church (Structural Work)

Mr Gerry Kelly: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment to make a statement on the major structural work that is being undertaken on the interior of St Joseph’s Church in Prince’s Dock Street, Belfast.
(AQO 525/01)

Mr Sam Foster: The work that is being carried out inside St Joseph’s Church is limited to the stripping of small areas of plasterwork to investigate the condition of elements of the building and the affixing of ties to monitor the movement of the structure. At the rear of the church, props have been installed to provide structural support for the gallery. Most of the internal fixtures have been placed in secure storage. The pulpit and some pews remain in the building. The firm that carried out the investigation has recommended that a structural engineer be appointed to study structural movement, the state of underground piling and the seating of the trusses.

Mr Gerry Kelly: As the Minister is aware, the building was deconsecrated in February. Given that it is a grade B listed building, will the Environment and Heritage Service continue to inspect the inside of the building? There is concern about it. The Minister mentioned the pews, some of which are missing. Is everything covered by the protection of the Department of the Environment? Will there be regular inspections? Is there any planning permission for hoardings outside the building?

Mr Sam Foster: As the church has been deconsecrated, it no longer enjoys ecclesiastical exemption from listed building consent. Any works of alteration, extension or demolition will require my Department’s approval. However, there was no requirement for listed building consent for the works that have been carried out to date because they were purely investigative and were in the interest of the safety of the structure.
My officials are aware of the works, but were not formally consulted because listed building consent was not required. However, the nature of the work was confirmed when officials from Environment and Heritage Service recently met the parish priest, Fr David White, on site. The interior fixtures were removed for safe keeping when the building was still a consecrated church. It would therefore have been exempt from the requirement for listed building consent.

Sellafield

Mr George Savage: 5. asked the Minister of the Environment if there has been any contact from the Government of the Irish Republic over its opposition to the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield.
(AQO 506/01)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department has had no contact with the Government of the Irish Republic over its opposition to the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield. The issue was raised at the plenary meeting of the British-Irish Council in Dublin on 30 November.
It has been agreed that the Sellafield issue should be considered by the environment sector of the British-Irish Council on the basis of a joint paper on Sellafield that the Irish and Manx Governments had previously agreed to prepare. I shall participate fully in those discussions and ensure that relevant Northern Ireland considerations are put forward. As the Member knows, neither I nor my Department has any jurisdiction over the operation or regulation of the Sellafield plant. Therefore, it would not be appropriate or productive for the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to deal with the issue bilaterally. The British-Irish Council provides a forum within which all Administrations with an interest in Sellafield can be represented.

Mr George Savage: The Minister will be aware, especially after last week’s debate, that the issue is emotive. Can he point out any reliable scientific evidence that shows whether the mixed oxide (MOX) reprocessing plant represents a greater danger to Northern Ireland than existing dangers?

Mr Sam Foster: The MOX plant causes much concern, and we are keeping a close eye on emissions. However, as I said earlier, we have no power over that matter, other than to make representations on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I assure the Member that we shall watch the situation closely. The events of 11 September in America have created a fear that there will be an attack on a plant such as Sellafield. We shall make every representation that we can and do all that is within our power, and all that our permanent structure allows, to deal with that problem.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Has the Minister been in contact with his counterparts in the Irish Government, particularly in the light of the cross-party concerns that were highlighted in the House last week about the welfare and health of the people on this entire island?

Mr Sam Foster: I re-emphasise that we are aware of this Administration’s concerns and those of the Administration South of the border. We are willing to work with anybody for the benefit of all people where possible, but, as I have said, Sellafield is a matter for Her Majesty’s Government, to which we shall make representations where and when we can. There is great fear about the MOX plant emissions, especially since the events of 11 September and the concerns that there are about nuclear security in America. I stress that I shall make what representations I can. The situation is difficult, and there are concerns abroad.

Mr Peter Weir: I welcome the fact that the Minister will keep the situation under surveillance. Will he tell us what specific measures his Department will put in place to ensure ongoing monitoring of the effects of the MOX plant in the coming months?

Mr Sam Foster: My Department arranges for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to take samples and analyse sea water, fish, shellfish, seaweed and sediments on the bed of the Irish Sea. That work has been ongoing since the early 1950s. Northern Ireland’s results consistently reveal minimal amounts of radioactivity at levels that are consistent with normal background levels. Those results are published in the ‘Radioactivity in Food and the Environment’ annual report. They also appear in the Northern Ireland digest of statistics. People in Northern Ireland receive an average of 2,500 microsieverts of radiation a year from natural and artificial sources. Exposure to radon in the home accounts for 50% of that total, with 12% coming from medical exposure. Nuclear discharges account for less than 0·1%. A recent study undertaken in collaboration with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and University College Dublin on radioactivity levels in Strangford Lough shows that the radiation dose from artificial radioactivity is of negligible significance.

Sellafield

Mr Eddie McGrady: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment what representations he has made to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd concerning the commissioning of the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield; and to make a statement.
(AQO 491/01)

Mr Sam Foster: I have made no representations to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd concerning the commissioning of the MOX plant at Sellafield. I acknowledge the concerns expressed about a range of potential safety risks from the operation of the MOX plant, which we have just referred to. As I said in last week’s debate, my officials have written to their counterparts in the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to seek confirmation that all relevant risks were fully taken into account in the MOX decision. Their reply pointed to those parts of the decision document that dealt with the safety, security, environmental and health issues, and, in particular, to the advice from the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. I have since written to Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with a copy to Patricia Hewitt at the Department of Trade and Industry, seeking further information and assurance about the regulation of Sellafield and the security arrangements following the events of 11 September. I await their responses.
I shall also ensure that Northern Ireland considerations are fully taken into account when the environment sector of the British-Irish Council discusses the paper on Sellafield which is being jointly prepared by the Irish and Manx Governments. I assure everybody that my objective is to be fully satisfied that Northern Ireland’s interests are sufficiently protected. To that end, I will convey to the Assembly as much of the information obtained in these exchanges as the constraints of national security will allow.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his response. It is the sixth response on Sellafield in the Chamber this afternoon, which is very welcome indeed. Will the Minister take on board the fact that there were two prerequisite elements for the licensing of the MOX plant that were not covered in his reply? First, the Health and Safety Executive had not reported before the licence was granted. Secondly, he completely omitted the economic case, which is also a requirement of the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). That was omitted deliberately, because it is infeasible.
The Minister is the one person who can drive this on behalf of the House. Will he assure the House that he will be proactive in representing last week’s debate and today’s questions? He must ensure, in co-operation with all relevant parties, that the British Government are made fully aware. The strongest possible expression of discontent, to put it mildly, must be made to them, and we must be proactive.

Mr Sam Foster: I can assure Mr McGrady that, as far as we possibly can, we will make undoubted representations for the protection of Northern Ireland.

Statutory Best Value Regime

Mr Edwin Poots: 7. asked the Minister of the Environment what consultation he has had with his ministerial counterpart in the National Assembly for Wales on the benefits of a statutory best value regime.
(AQO 498/01)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department has received papers from the Welsh Office on the best value process in Wales, including details of the plans to review that process over the next few months. I have also spoken to my counterpart in the Welsh Assembly, Edwina Hart, the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Housing, to learn at first hand what the review is likely to address. My understanding of the position is that the principles underlying the statutory framework for best value in Wales are not being questioned. Rather, the review will address details of its implementation and arrangements for its scrutiny. The broad objective of the review is to provide a workable model for best value in Wales that will give practical effect to the existing framework within current statutory provisions. Following a consultation process, the review group aims to have revised guidance in place by 1 April 2002.
The Local Government (Best Value) Bill currently before the Assembly includes five clauses that provide for a basic framework in the interest of council residents and ratepayers.

Mr Edwin Poots: I hope that, after his consultations with his Welsh counterpart, the Minister will take this issue seriously and reconsider the process of introducing statutory best value to Northern Ireland, which he is currently engaged in. The Bill appears to be inappropriate at this time, and it does not have the support of the local authorities or the unions that represent those working in local authorities. It has already cost local authorities an immense amount of money. Much valuable staff time has been tied up in the operation of voluntary best value, and much more of that time — which could be put to better use — will be tied up in the operation of statutory best value.

Mr Sam Foster: I thank Mr Poots for his question, but I am not sure whether the sentiments expressed come from Edwin Poots MLA or Cllr Edwin Poots; he may wish to declare an interest.
Best value is designed as a framework within which councils should deliver local services according to the wishes of residents and ratepayers, at a price that they are willing to pay. People are entitled to know how their council is performing, how well their money is being spent and what future plans the council has for local services.
I am committed to avoiding the imposition of unnecessary bureaucracy on councils, but their views should not be given precedence over the rights and needs of ratepayers, residents and users of council services. Equally, the Assembly, with its preponderance of district councillors, should not allow its judgement to be clouded by the wishes of councillors at the expense of the views of local people, who deserve value for money and who are entitled to transparency and accountability in local service provision. Openness and transparency are vital elements of the Local Government (Best Value) Bill.

Mr Billy Bell: As Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, I am aware of the issues relating to accountability. Does the Minister agree that there should be a robust public accountability framework for local government, as there is for central Government? I declare an interest as a councillor, but I speak as Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr Sam Foster: I acknowledge the fact that the Member has declared an interest. I agree that there is a need for a robust public accountability framework for local government, but the application of best value across the wider public sector goes beyond my remit as Minister of the Environment.
Central Government already operates a type of best value framework. Indeed, in many ways, it is more rigorous than the best value framework that I propose for district councils. It includes the Programme for Government, public service agreements, published departmental and agency corporate and business plans, the work of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, value for money studies and the work of the Public Accounts Committee and other Statutory Committees of the Assembly. That accountability framework was designed for central government, and it would be too burdensome for local government as presently structured. The Local Government (Best Value) Bill, on the other hand, is designed to fit the specific circumstances of the local government sector.
I am aware that proposals for regulating best value in housing and education are being considered and that the Department of Education is drafting legislation covering the application of best value by education and library boards. Similarly, the Department for Social Development is examining proposals to formulate best value in the housing sector. My ministerial colleagues in the relevant Departments are responsible for the detail of those proposals, but I can assure Mr Bell that best value and accountability are seen as an absolute necessity.

Planning Applications

Mrs Eileen Bell: 8. asked the Minister of the Environment if he plans to place contentious planning applications on hold until such time as the reform of local government is in place.
(AQO 504/01)

Mr Sam Foster: The Executive gave a commitment in the draft Programme for Government for 2002-03 to launch the review of public administration by spring 2002. The organisation of local government services will be considered in the context of that review, which will cover all aspects of the public sector and will be led by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Good progress has been made, and we are on target to launch the review in spring 2002.
It would not be practical or lawful for me to place contentious planning applications on hold pending the outcome of the review. Once all material planning information relating to an application has been received and considered, my Department is under a legal obligation to determine that application. I have no powers to hold applications — contentious or otherwise — in such circumstances.
The Member may also be aware that article 33 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 gives applicants in all but major cases designated under article 31 of that Order the right to appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission on the grounds that his or her application has not been determined by my Department within the timescales laid down.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his answer, even though it may not be the one that I wanted. Does the Minister at least agree that his experiences as a local councillor show that the current planning system is chaotic? The review of local government could consider how to ensure that all planning cases could be considered on their merits. Individual planning applications should be dealt with according to the needs of the local area and the residents, which is not happening at present.

Ms Jane Morrice: Our time is up. I ask the Minister to give his reply in writing.

Programme for Government

Debate resumed on amendment to motion:
That this Assembly endorses the Programme for Government agreed by the Executive. — [The First Minister] [The Deputy First Minister.]
Which amendment was: Delete all after "Assembly" and insert:
"declines to approve the Northern Ireland Executive Programme for Government because it fails to adequately address the Executive’s stated priorities, does not tackle the deep divisions and inequalities in this society and therefore does not deliver the new beginning envisioned by the Good Friday Agreement." — [Mrs E Bell]

Mr Kieran McCarthy: While I have a lot of reservations about many aspects of the Programme for Government, as outlined by my Colleague, Eileen Bell, earlier in the debate, I welcome the decision by the Executive to prioritise, and I am thankful that health is now the number one priority for all. Despite the extra funding for the Health Service, waiting lists continue to lengthen. Bed blocking is also continuing to increase, and facilities for people with learning difficulties are being stretched to the limits. Cancer service problems and problems with other services must be tackled immediately. Our sick people deserve better, and with the funding that is going in, they expect better.
However, I am relieved that free nursing care is to be provided — the sooner, the better. I hope that the necessary legislation will come along shortly; we do not want to see any delays. There is real disappointment because free personal care is not being provided for. I appeal to the Executive to work extremely hard on that as soon as possible. One section of care is as important as the other, and this needs urgent attention.
There is deep disappointment that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s request for funding for free digital aids for people with hearing difficulties has not, to my knowledge, been granted. Again, the disabled are left to suffer. If the Executive are to mean anything, they must listen and act as far as humanly possible to assist everyone to have confidence in the National Health Service.
There are many other concerns to do with health and other areas of daily living, and Eileen Bell spoke about some of them earlier. My party leader, David Ford, will shortly follow with what the Alliance Party feels needs in-depth attention. I support the amendment.

Mr John Fee: I support the motion and reject the amendment. This, the second Programme for Government, goes a long way towards addressing the Executive’s stated priorities. It also makes a good stab at tackling divisions and inequalities in society. It goes a long way towards delivering the new beginning envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement. As the second home-grown Programme for Government agreed by the Executive, this is another extraordinary document and an extraordinary achievement.
I am not going to speak at great length. The debate has ranged across many wide areas, policies and services. One comment that the Deputy First Minister made earlier struck me and illustrates one element of this programme which is deeply frustrating. The phrase he used was "consultation fatigue". On page 29 of the Programme for Government the Executive have committed themselves to ensuring that
"any new configurations of hospital services are supported by a modern and effective Ambulance Service, delivered through a programme of targeted investment and change based on the implementation proposals now published."
I can only assume that the implementation proposals are those contained in the report of the strategic review of the Ambulance Service, which was published last month by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I use the words "consultation fatigue" because the implementation paper has "consultation paper" written all over it.
I will put the proposals in context: in 1998, the Department first set up a team to review the Ambulance Service. That review group reported on 25 February 2000 and then began a consultation exercise, which lasted until 30 June. It took until November 2000 to establish an implementation steering group. A year later, in November this year, that steering group published its implementation strategy. Four years since the review began the Minister still refers to it as a consultation exercise. I find that consultation fatigue is setting in, and that must also be the case for those who are failed, not by the ambulance staff and paramedics, but by the service and its organisation.
According to the current targets for response times, the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service should respond to 50% of all emergency calls within eight minutes, and to 95% of all emergency calls in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board area within 18 minutes, or within 21 minutes in the other three board areas. The Executive should take on board that the vast majority of my constituency, and of most rural constituencies, cannot be reached from a hospital or ambulance station within eight minutes.
A substantial portion of Northern Ireland cannot be reached within the 18- or 21-minute response time. Among those areas are the whole south Armagh border, from Cullaville to Crossmaglen, through Keady to Middletown, vast tracks of the Clogher Valley, including Augher, parts of Fermanagh, and, until recently, parts of County Down and County Antrim. In an emergency, large sections of our community cannot be reached within the agreed safe response times for ambulance provision.
Since the implementation proposals are mentioned so specifically in the Programme for Government, and since they have now been published, will the Executive get on with the job of implementing them? I am not asking for a single extra penny for this service. Reorganisation could achieve savings, while creating the response times and the emergency services that we all want.
Every other emergency service — such as the fire, police and coastguard services — is centrally funded. The Ambulance Service has 800 staff in four operational divisions, which work in four health board areas. The boards commission urgent ambulance services, and in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board area the eight local trusts commission the Ambulance Service. Why is the service not funded centrally in the same way as other emergency services? Imagine the layers of bureaucracy that could be bypassed, the money that could be saved and reinvested in the emergency appliances and the training of the specialist staff who man them.
My plea to the Executive is not to allocate money from a certain budget, nor to rewrite the Programme for Government. After almost four and a half years of consultation, I plead that they put an end to the dithering and implement, without further delay, what is clearly stated on page 29 of their programme.

Mr Edwin Poots: In answer to my question of 3 December on the state of forward planning in relation to the review of public administration and the children’s commissioner, Mr Durkan indicated that he had previously responded to questions about these matters. That is correct, but it does not mean that the responses were adequate. He should not therefore be surprised that I will be returning to those matters. They are matters of concern to the Committee of the Centre, and I hope that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister understands that I will continue to raise them until they are dealt with satisfactorily.
In its response to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the draft Programme for Government, the Committee of the Centre expressed concern about the approach to forward planning there and the lack of specific or measurable targets for a number of areas. The junior Ministers advised that it might not be possible to have quantified time-bounded targets in place in every case. This may help explain why the closest target we have been given for the launch of the review of public administration is spring 2002.
The House may be interested to note that according to the Collins English Dictionary spring is defined as the period from the March equinox to the June solstice in the northern hemisphere, or from the September equinox to the December solstice in the southern hemisphere. Given the lapse that has taken place, let us hope that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister realise that we are in the northern hemisphere and not the southern and that we will have a review of public administration within the next six months.
We have already waited for two years for a review. It was a priority for the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr Trimble. When the eleven Departments were set up, we were told that a review would help offset the costs of having additional Departments. We should remember that Northern Ireland costs £80 million more to administer now than it did before the signing of the Belfast Agreement. Administration costs are much higher than they were pre-April 1998. That issue must be addressed.
In June the Committee of the Centre was advised of the main issues under consideration with regard to a review. Should the approach be strategic or overarching, or should it take the form of a series of independent departmental reviews of individual sectors? Should it cover all functions at local, sub-regional and central levels? Was the most appropriate mechanism for taking it forward internal, external or a combination of these? What principles should guide the direction of the review? Should it be one all-encompassing review, or a review of the principles of public administration followed by a series of linked reviews of different sectors? How should the timing be phased?
In June of this year consideration was still being given to what the terms of reference should be. I had hoped that by now we would have had those, but I have not been advised that this is so. The Committee was advised that it would receive a further report when progress was made on these issues. Members may be surprised to learn that no such report has yet been sent to the Committee. In view of the approach to forward planning taken by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I am not surprised.
In paragraph 7.5 of the Programme for Government we are told that
"The Executive remains committed to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of and accountability for, the administration and delivery of public services in Northern Ireland. We recognise the need for different structures under devolution, taking account of new relationships between local and regional government, as well as the full range of other bodies that function within the wider public sector. We are committed to a comprehensive and strategic review of all aspects of the public sector."
In a press statement following a meeting of the Executive on 14 November, the public was advised that at that meeting the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister introduced a discussion paper on the review of public administration. When are the Assembly and, indeed, the relevant Committee going to be advised of the content of the discussion paper?
What progress, if any, has been made since June? This is one of the most important cross-cutting issues that the Assembly will have to tackle, and it is one that could deliver significant efficiency benefits and cost savings. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel proposes a significant rise in the regional rate and one considers the additional burden that has been put upon ratepayers, a review of public administration will show where £4 million of savings, which would keep the rate rise to the level of inflation, might come from.
The way in which the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has handled that does not inspire me with confidence. If that is its approach to such a vital task, how can the Assembly be assured that it will deliver on the other important cross-cutting issues set out in the Programme for Government, such as the community relations strategy and the victims strategy, both of which have slipped from the original dates that were set for them.
The Committee of the Centre and many Members attach a great deal of importance to the appointment of a children’s commissioner. Sub-priority 4 of section two of the Programme for Government says that the Executive aim to protect children’s rights, meet children’s needs and include children’s voices. The Programme states that
"Children need the support of society to ensure that their right to a safe, happy and fulfilling childhood is respected and promoted."
No Members would disagree, but the Programme for Government sets June 2002 as its target for the appointment of a children’s commissioner. The Committee of the Centre carried out an inquiry into the appointment of a commissioner earlier this year. The Committee’s report was debated and approved by the Assembly on 26 June. In responding to the debate the junior Minister said that
"The appointment of a children’s commissioner is one of the most significant and exciting things to occur since devolution."
He advised that the legislation should be introduced to the Assembly early in the new year. I understand that that may happen in February. Even allowing for a smooth passage through all the stages, it is likely to take three to four months for the Bill to go through the Assembly, and it may be May next year before the legislation is finally in place. Can the Ministers explain how a children’s commissioner will be in place for June 2002? Will they also confirm if the appointment will be made in accordance with the procedures for public appointments? Will the Ministers explain why they continue to set unrealistic targets in the Programme for Government that unfairly raise the expectations of the public — particularly the expectations of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and individuals in society?
Some concerns about the equality impact assessment on the Programme for Government were drawn to the Committee’s attention. Paragraph 1.11 of annexe D states that the Executive recognise that much of their work
"has significant implications for equality of opportunity"
and that they are
"committed to ensuring that this is fully taken into account as we progress our work".
However in paragraph 1.9 we are advised that
"it is not practicable to properly assess the equality impact of the various sub-priorities nor of the overall Programme for Government".
Reliance is instead to be placed on the individual equality impact assessments carried out on various policies.
That approach has various weaknesses. It will not pick up the impact of combined policies; it will not identify ways to promote the equality of opportunity through joined-up Government; and it places particular emphasis on the quality of individual assessments — and the Committee of the Centre has drawn the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister’s attention to deficiencies there. The equality impact assessments identify adverse impact rather than focus on positive ways to promote equality of opportunity.
Will the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister reflect on those comments and consider if there is any way in which the deficiencies in its approach can be addressed?

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Health Service is in crisis because it has had no one to care for it. At last, we have a Minister who knows what she is doing and who is slowly but surely evaluating the performance of all the separate parts of the Health Service — hospitals, primary care, ambulances, health promotion and education.
However, there are two fundamental facts that we cannot change in the short term. The Health Service has been starved of hundreds of millions of pounds over the past 30 years. The Thatcherite agenda has created a culture of bureaucracy. The internal market and the trusts have taken money from front-line services; an added complication is the lack of nurses and doctors.
At last, the Executive have begun to respond to the Minister’s demands for more cash. They have had to; across every political party and throughout every community the demand was clear — give the Health Service more money. However, we must be careful, now that we are taking faltering steps, that we do not demand the unreasonable.
The motives of the motion are very clear, but much more spend would be invisible and improvements slow. Junior doctors are working more civilised hours — and they are safer. However, productivity has been cut. Registrars no longer operate alone; surgeons supervise them — again a cut in productivity.
One of the problems is that politicians cannot wait; they will not let the changes be explored and bedded down and allowed to work. The scale of the long-term underfunding cannot and should not be underestimated. During the lifetime of the Assembly, Mr Durkan has allocated the Minister only a fraction of the resources that she has bid for. This is the responsibility of the Executive.
The trusts that were created to facilitate the internal markets have also had considerable problems in managing their budgets. It is true that a portion of new money, in some cases, has gone to meet health trust defects. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr John Dallat: I do not propose any radical changes to the programme. Clearly, any programme necessitates choices, but it also involves good housekeeping to ensure that the public gets value for money.
Since the end of direct rule, the Public Accounts Committee has dealt with several disturbing reports prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General that clearly show that in the past, and particularly during direct rule, the public did not get good value for money — far from it. The Minister has clearly said that there will be no tolerance of Departments that do not clearly demonstrate that they have managed their finances well, and of course this is most welcome. However, much public expenditure is not controlled directly by the Departments but by a whole variety of quangos, and here the public auditor has produced several highly disturbing reports that show that there has been little regard for proper accountancy practices.
Since the last report on the Programme for Government there have been important improvements to how spending of public finances is recorded and accounted for; I refer of course to the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2000.
I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that he will leave no stone unturned in his determination to clean out all bad practices in how public money is expended. Ultimately, this can only mean that the public will get more services within the constraints of the resources available. I would go further and ask that we do all that we can to measure the quality of the services provided and to ensure that where serious deficiencies exist they are rooted out without delay. However, I should like to see recognition for success.
To date, it has not been shown that there is a quick response to unnecessary waste or a fast track to stem it. I would welcome an undertaking from the Minister that the findings of the public accounts reports will be much more than historical records of past events and are in fact alarm bells for all that there is no tolerance of waste or of substandard service being delivered to the public.
The public will judge the success or failure of the Assembly by the way in which we conduct our income and expenditure and the level of service we provide. It must be clearly understood that the bad practices that crept in during direct rule are gone forever.

Mrs Iris Robinson: While every Department has a genuine case for claiming to be underfunded, there is little doubt that the one single area of local government most in need of investment is the Health Service. No other area of local life has seen such decline over the past few years, and the challenge must be met head-on to prevent further disintegration of healthcare across the Province.
The provision of cancer care requires urgent financial assistance — the local service is rated as one of the poorest in Europe. It was encouraging to hear last week’s announcement that an extra £41 million is to be ploughed into the Health Service. It has, however, been acknowledged that that may not be sufficient to maintain the level of healthcare currently required. While it is not all that we wanted, it must be of some comfort to patients whose treatment has been postponed or suspended. I am glad that £12·4 million of that provision is to be allocated to the coronary and cancer fields. The Programme for Government states categorically that there will be a focus on modernising and improving hospital and primary care services to ensure more timely and effective care and treatment.
The current state of our cancer services is exacerbated by the state of the equipment and machinery being used to deliver the services. It is old, outdated, inefficient and in need of urgent replacement. It is with horror that I note that there is not one single reference to investment in cancer care services in the programme. There are only two references to the disease — one in section 3.2, where it states that
"While deaths from heart disease are falling among those under 75, cancer deaths have been increasing and are likely to become the main cause of death in the coming years. We will therefore maintain a focus on prevention and treatment of cancer and heart disease."
A second reference is to the demand for essential drugs in the fight against cancer, in paragraph 3.6. Providing access to cardiac surgery for an additional 150 people by March 2003 is referred to, yet there is no mention of the provision for cancer care. I find that illogical, indefensible and ill thought out. Last year, 31% of eligible women had not had a cervical screening test in the previous five years, and 28% of women aged between 50 and 64 had not had a breast screening test in the previous three years. Primary care services vigorously promote the concept of healthy living but lack both the finance and the resources to enable that goal to be fulfilled.
The Health Service must be able to provide rapid diagnosis followed by speedily planned and implemented treatment and support for patients. As things stand, patients are all too often forced to wait too long to see a specialist, delaying diagnosis and treatment. That delay and the inefficiencies of cancer equipment are causing untold and unnecessary anxiety for patients. It does not maximise the potential of the Health Service to treat conditions properly.
People often have no option but to travel to Belfast for treatment, rather than be treated locally, thus adding to their stress. At present there are no haematologists in the Western Board area, and that forces patients to travel to Belfast. The recent resignation of a radiologist at Antrim Hospital has caused delays in diagnosis. Attracting and keeping qualified staff is an ongoing difficulty. Better financial support across the Health Service would benefit many needy people. That must be addressed.
I am also disappointed to note that there is no reference in the Programme for Government to investment in maternity services. Following the farce that was the review of maternity services in Belfast, it is incredible that there is no mention of the new maternity hospital.
I am glad that the Department has finally realised that failure to provide adequate aftercare services has resulted in the system backing up to the point at which ambulances have had to be used for patients in accident and emergency departments. More than 70 beds in the Ulster Hospital are being used by patients who should not be in hospital. The lack of community care services continues to be the reason for bed blocking, not only in the Ulster Hospital but throughout the Province’s acute hospitals. More than 12 patients waiting for operations on life-threatening brain tumours were forced out of the Royal Victoria Hospital for the same reason. Until that problem is properly addressed, services will stumble from one crisis to another.
The long-term care of the elderly is an issue that has gathered great momentum over the past few weeks and months — rightly so. Elderly citizens in Northern Ireland must stand idly by as services in Scotland, England and Wales are enhanced. The Health and Social Care Act 2001 splits care into two parts: nursing care and personal care. In England, residents will not receive funding for personal care, but they will receive up to £35, £70 or £110 per week for nursing care, depending on individual circumstances. In Wales, all residents qualify for £90 per week for nursing care, but, again, they do not receive assistance for personal care. In Scotland, residents receive up to £65 per week for nursing care and up to £90 per week for personal care, while all personal care is free for those living at home.
We should compare all that to what is provided in Northern Ireland — absolutely nothing. Residents of Northern Ireland receive zilch for nursing care or personal care. Although the Department appears to be committed to free care in principle, it was forced to admit that it could not afford to provide that assistance. In any case, that commitment relates only to nursing care and not to personal care, which constitutes the bulk of care costs.
The elderly in this country have been relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Although the commitment to provide free nursing care by October 2002 is welcome, elderly citizens are not best served by having the cost of care split into nursing and personal sections. The state should be responsible for nursing and personal costs. Until such times, elderly citizens will get a bad deal from the Assembly. I hope that Ministers will take those views on board.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Members who had the opportunity to look at this afternoon’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’ will have seen that a major report has been published in the UK called ‘Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion’. That report is the result of a large-scale survey carried out by the New Policy Institute and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It responds to the UK Government’s ambitious programme for eradicating poverty and shows that results relating to 24 out of 50 indicators improved last year. That is the good news. Results for eight of those poverty indicators have become worse, and the rest have remained steady.
The report goes on to say that there are still four million children and a total of 13·3 million people living in poverty, which it defines as less than 60% of the average household income.
The report’s conclusion is that the UK Government have made a slow start in their ambitious programme, but at least they have made a start. I would have thought that, on opening the Programme for Government, we could see what kind of start we have made in Northern Ireland. After the publication of the first Programme for Government, I asked whether the Executive had a research base for the indicators for child poverty — if not for family poverty — in Northern Ireland.
I still ask that question. Despite the Programme for Government’s targets, we will not know in Northern Ireland whether we are doing better, staying steady, or getting worse, unless we can come to some answers, in the way that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Policy Institute were able to do by evaluating the ambitious programme set down by the Government at Westminster. Until we have that information, we can continue to set different targets in each new programme, but all we are doing is monitoring different things each time. The questions that I often ask are: what is in it, and what is not in it? I will continue to ask those questions until there is some indication of whether we are going up, staying steady or going down.
Despite the excellent report from the Committee for Finance and Personnel, reliance on private finance initiatives is being put forward as the only way forward. There should have been some criteria in the Programme for Government stating that that may not be the most appropriate way to proceed and that partnerships could be sought elsewhere. I would like to have seen a greater emphasis on private, public and voluntary partnerships, rather than the argument that private finance initiatives are the only way to proceed in Northern Ireland. We have learnt a great deal from the partnerships that have existed with regard to the social economy. However, there is little with regard to that in the Programme for Government.
The programme makes a sweeping statement on external relations, suggesting that Northern Ireland is a model for conflict resolution. I am not convinced that we have even started the process of conflict transformation. The Executive of Northern Ireland are targeted with conflict management. Through the management of that conflict, Northern Ireland may have become a good model for elsewhere. However, if we are ever going to achieve conflict resolution, we should be mindful of what we have not done well. What is happening on the streets and in the communities of north Belfast, for example, shows us how far we still have to go.
The duplication of services and lack of integration in Northern Ireland increases the amount of money that we spend each year — whether it is to provide separate facilities for housing, education, or health, depending on the location of local health surgeries. If we are to address genuinely the problems that we have faced in the past 30 years, that should have been an interdepartmental theme in the programme. The Civic Forum made a good point when it stated that the section titled ‘Growing as a Community’ should have been titled ‘Tackling Inter-Communal Division’. The alternative is the promotion of equality and inclusion.
I agree with Iris Robinson about the problems that we still face with regard to health. Despite the extra finance that the Health Service in Northern Ireland has received, there has been no real increase. Therein lies the problem. The percentage of the block grant has remained at 40% this year; it will go down to less than 39% next year, and it will be just over 38% the following year. That is a major issue that should be addressed. It is good to see that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has increased its targets from eight in the draft programme to 22 in the revised programme, because it has the highest departmental budget.
However, if the percentage of the block grant remains at 40%, the Health Service will not do well. Free nursing care for the elderly has already been put forward as an example of a promise that was held out and then pulled back, and then restored, but only with effect from October 2002.
I am enormously concerned that the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill, which should have been considered by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, has not been introduced. The Executive should have explained in the Programme for Government why that is so. The public do not know that, unless the legislation is passed, we may be unable to give out that money next October. To date, no member of the Committee has seen the legislation.
The personal social services legislation is now going to relate only to nursing care, and not to personal care. Those in the communities that came here today, particularly the elderly, are extremely concerned that the Executive held out a promise that they are unable to deliver until October of next year. The promise carries a large health warning — the legislation may not be in place by next October.
Once again, mental health services have not been prioritised. Professionals working in that sector have come here to talk about the troubled mind and the impact that 30 years of conflict have had on children in Northern Ireland. That could have been an integrated theme for cross-departmental work, yet it is barely mentioned in the specific programme on health.
The new regional maternity hospital, which will be located in Belfast, is not mentioned in the Programme for Government either. The dire consequences are that the main regional neonatal hospital must turn children away because there are not enough cots or intensive care nurses to cope with children who are seriously ill after birth.
Unfortunately, in the Programme for Government, childcare is simply mentioned and then passed over. The message from programmes in other regions of the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, is that a child out of a nursery is a woman out of a job. Until that ceases to be the case, numeracy and literacy levels will continue to be poor because children fall behind if they do not get a head start — both in education and care. I pay tribute to John Dallat for raising the issue of numeracy and literacy so many times in the House.
It is with some concern that I address the Programme for Government. It is not enough to talk about investing in education and skills, or about working for a healthier people, when, throughout the programme, insufficient attention is paid to cross-departmental projects and programmes. On reading the document, one must ask which particular project has truly been highlighted for implementation on a cross-departmental basis.
My final concern is about where our legal obligations under the European Directives are addressed in the Programme for Government. Have specific targets been set? We have fallen far behind in meeting targets, particularly in environmental policy. Will we have to pay money because those obligations have not been met? If that were the case, what would the Executive’s intentions be to actually meet some of their obligations in the next few years?

Dr Sean Farren: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to address some issues in the Programme for Government that my Department is responsible for.
The proposed amendment asserts that the Programme for Government does not adequately or satisfactorily address the inequalities and divisions within our society. Obviously, the programme does not provide all the answers in relation to those areas under my responsibility, but, nonetheless, many initiatives for which I am responsible are specifically directed towards addressing some of the inequalities, lack of opportunities and divisions within our society.
I take very seriously the whole issue of social justice. A profound sense of social justice must inform our entire approach to the Programme for Government and its implementation. As we prioritise the particular initiatives in the various Departments’ responsibilities, high on the list must be the needs of the most disadvantaged in our society — those who have least resources and opportunities. Insofar as resources, initiatives and programmes can meet their needs, disadvantages and lack of opportunities, we must be seen to do so effectively.
On the theme of investing in education and skills, considerable progress in several respects can be recorded on the targets and initiatives that have been set, and some degree of positive achievement in making a difference can be identified. That whole theme is highlighted in the key priorities of the Programme for Government. It makes it clear that the Executive are determined to ensure that people in all sections of our society have the opportunities for education and training that will equip them to participate in the labour market in ways that will enable them to gain worthwhile and fulfilling forms of employment. In developing those initiatives and programmes, the Executive will ensure that people will be able to realise their personal potential with respect to their talents; that they will be supported to the best of our ability; and that no one will be marginalised or ignored.
One of the important initiatives currently under way is the work of the task force on employability and long-term unemployment. I trust that Ms McWilliams will note that it is clear evidence of a cross-departmental approach to key issues. The task force was established in the spring of this year, and it has been engaged since then in a wide range of consultations with many sectors in our society, from employers to trade unions and voluntary and community groups.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Does the Minister accept that the public and some Assembly Members — although welcoming the task force on employability — might be disappointed that a genuine partnership, as was suggested in the Programme for Government, was not really built among those in the various sectors who deal with the issue of unemployment daily? Instead, the Minister chose to use officials from Departments, albeit — and rightly so — from across all of the Executive Departments. However, professionals and the unemployed themselves were absent from that task force.

Dr Sean Farren: I am happy to address that point. It is not a point that has been made to us by the various groups that we have met. This morning, in co-operation with the Northern Ireland Association for the Unemployed, I had a very useful and positive meeting with a group of long-term unemployed people drawn from across Northern Ireland, and they were able to tell me of their own experiences. With them I was able to identify some of the initiatives and action plans on which our recommendations are likely to be based when the task force reports, early in the new year, I hope.
The range of community organisations that my officials and I met was such that we have had a most comprehensive form of consultation and engagement. The Department received a significant input and response from across the sector. Therefore, I can assure Ms McWilliams that the engagement that she suggests is necessary took place as recently as this morning. I trust that when the Department comes to make its final report, it will have an effective set of recommendations and action plans to put to Colleagues in the Executive and the Assembly.
The initiative on student financial support has received much public attention. At a further education college recently, I spoke to students who had benefited from the implementation of the first stage of the new package of financial support. They told me that were it not for the benefits that are now available, they would have found it impossible to avail of further and higher education. The group that I spoke to included women who had left school many years ago, some leaving with no formal qualifications. They can now avail of new opportunities to acquire qualifications and skills because of the new childcare allowances and the remission on fees. The residual threshold has been raised from £17,000 to £20,000, thus enabling many more students to avail of those opportunities because they no longer have to make the contribution to fees.
Together with the provision of additional places in higher education, the first benefits to widen opportunities are being put in place. In particular, that helps those from low-income backgrounds to participate in higher education and provides opportunities for more students to avail of higher education in Northern Ireland rather than having to migrate elsewhere.
From next September, bursaries will be available via maintenance support for low-income students. Those bursaries will further strengthen the support that has been made available since the review reported and the package was put in place earlier this year.
Frequently, there are complaints that some reviews take a considerable time to see the light of day and to be acted on. I am pleased to say that this review was undertaken in a short time frame, and action was taken within 12 months of its commencement.
Having met those in the initial cohort that have benefited from the new package, I take considerable satisfaction from having helped to put it in place. This is just a beginning; much more must be done, and much more could be done with resources that are not available at present.
The third issue relates to the wider provision of opportunities for lifelong learning. Many Members have been exercised by this. The individual learning accounts programme has been successful but, due to circumstances outside our control, it had to be suspended. The programme will be redeveloped in a more targeted way. However, notwithstanding suspension, almost 40,000 people have been able to draw down individual learning accounts and avail of additional or new forms of training and education which many of them would not previously have had access to.
Members will have noted that learndirect centres are being opened in their constituencies — they are being opened across Northern Ireland. We have established nearly 30 centres, and 32 will be open by March 2002. These will provide access to over 12,000 online courses.
Members who are familiar with the provision of learndirect will know that the centres are located on high streets and have the appearance of shops. They are easily accessible and provide an innovative and imaginative approach to the provision of lifelong learning opportunities. When I visited the centres I was struck by the range of people from different backgrounds who use them. Young, middle-aged and older people are using the programme. I trust that Members are encouraging their constituents to avail of the opportunities that learndirect offers.
We provide adequate lifelong learning opportunities. However, courses for those who need to improve their basic literacy, numeracy, and information technology skills must be provided in addition to this. Tribute has been paid to my Colleague, John Dallat, for frequently raising the problems associated with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills. I am aware of the needs that must be met. Many programmes are already in place, but from early next year, the new strategy for basic skills will be set up. Thereafter, we hope that provision will be made in a much more comprehensive and coherent way. This will involve the further education colleges working with community and voluntary organisations. We must reach out to all who, regrettably, have the types of numeracy and literacy difficulties that have been highlighted. It is important to note the tremendous contribution of many employers and the trade union movement in assisting us and in developing their own initiatives to tackle problems with their employees and members. I trust that, together with the various agencies, we will be able to make such progress that that problem will become one of the past, rather than one of the present.
The recent publication of the Burns Report has highlighted another important area for cross-departmental co-operation. I assure the House that my Department is in close consultation with my Colleague the Minister of Education’s Department, particularly in respect of those aspects of the Burns Report that touch on further education. Members will be familiar with the general proposals on co-operation between further education and second level education for pupils over the age of 16. However, I am aware that many Members have highlighted the need for a much more vocational dimension to the final years of compulsory schooling — in other words, schooling for 14- to 16-year-olds.
We are addressing all of those curricular and structural issues in close consultation with the Department of Education. We want to ensure that, in future, all young people leaving school will meet the minimum standards they need to confidently enter training and further and higher education programmes, and thereby equip themselves for full and worthwhile participation in the labour market. That is the joint aim of both Departments’ work on the issues that have arisen from the Burns Report.
I will briefly touch on several other specific issues that are in the Programme for Government and that must be highlighted. If we are to achieve the economic progress that is essential to our society and have a workforce that is adequately prepared, equipped, trained and qualified, then we must ensure that our training and further and higher education institutions are as up to date as possible with respect to information communication technology, both at infrastructural level and in the provision of courses to equip students with those skills and qualifications.
I am pleased that, in line with the Programme for Government, considerable progress has been made on ensuring adequate provision for the further education and university sectors. Outside investors who come to Northern Ireland to assess the support that we have available never cease to be impressed by the provision that is there to produce trained technicians and graduates. As Members will be aware, there are not enough properly qualified people here, and we have worked hard recently with employers in several leading enterprises to establish fast-track training programmes to ensure that the people with the skills and the qualifications are available.
Although there is still a long way to go, the infrastructure and courses are there. We may need a turnaround in curricular focus in our schools to ensure that interest is developed in careers other than those that have been pursued up to now through further and higher education. Again, that highlights the need for closer co- operation between my own Department and the Department of Education. More importantly, an adequate career guidance and counselling service is needed. In line with the contents of the Programme for Government, we hope to be able to put that in place early in the new year when the Fulton Report has been finalised and decisions taken on it.
I argue to the House that, in attempting to meet my Department’s general targets, progress is being made. The progress that can be made, and, indeed, should be made will never end. Some issues on which progress might have been made more rapidly are tied to the availability of resources.
I accept Prof McWilliams’ point on Northern Ireland and conflict resolution. I have raised that issue frequently with our further and higher education colleges. More often than not our schools become the focal point for encouraging a greater sense of awareness of conflict resolution. The responsibilities fall to those who will be among the leaders in our social and economic sectors. We tend to say that only schools should address issues related to cross-community understanding, respect, democratic citizenship, and the responsibilities that are associated with those general concepts.
Our further education colleges and universities have an even greater responsibility. Too often we focus on particular disciplines and look for excellence — rightly so — in those disciplines. However, there is also a wider responsibility to challenge our students’ understanding of democratic citizenship, and the rights and responsibilities that that concept implies. Issues that relate to conflict resolution, such as promoting respect and understanding of different traditions, can assist co-operation. Some of those challenges are not put to our students as directly as they should be. If they were, our young graduates and those who qualify from our further education colleges might develop a greater sense of responsibility. That point must be taken up by all in the Assembly and specifically by our institutions.

Mr David Ford: The issues that have been addressed fall into two broad areas. The first is the Health Service, which the Executive are supposed to have made a priority, and the second is the divisions in our society. Nobody who has spoken has been satisfied with the provisions for health services in the future. Most notably, the contributions from Mrs Iris Robinson and Ms Monica McWilliams, who backed Mr Kieran McCarthy’s concerns, made it clear that a great deal remains to be done. Almost all the additional money was redirected to acute services, even though the Hayes Report has not been implemented because no conclusion has been reached.
There has been very little on community care and virtually nothing on psychiatric services and childcare. Even in community care, we have had sight of the promise of free nursing care for those who require residential nursing home places, but nothing on free personal care — a matter that is of considerably more consequence to more people. There is great concern that the people of Northern Ireland will be left behind — certainly behind Scotland and to some extent behind Wales — in that process as it goes on during this year. If the Executive were serious about tackling the real needs of the many elderly and disabled people in Northern Ireland, they would look at free personal care and not just at free nursing care.
In his opening remarks the Deputy First Minister said that the divisions in our society were dealt with in the section ‘Growing as a Community’, which, he said, was about tackling divisions in society. However, I can find only one sub-priority that deals with divisions in that section of the Programme for Government. If the Executive were so concerned about such divisions they should have devoted a chapter to them. Indeed, there are only three action points, and they are not terribly specific.
Sub-priority 2 speaks of
"the need to support the capacity of local communities to deal with matters of dispute and division including the proliferation of sectarian graffiti, unauthorised flag flying, the erection of memorials and other issues that can lead to community tensions".
However, when my Colleagues and I write to Ministers about graffiti, kerbstone painting and the flying of illegal organisations’ flags, we are fobbed off with "it cannot be done at this stage" and "community consensus is needed". Why is there no coherent action plan? We have instead
"during 2002, following consultation, put in place a cross- departmental strategy".
This, I suspect, means that it will be 2004 before anything is done. If the Programme for Government intends that something happen this year, I should like to hear from the Minister who will respond. I take it by his presence in the Chamber that Dermott Nesbitt will have that pleasure.
It is unfortunate that the First Minister was not present at any stage during the debate on the Programme for Government, and there was a relatively limited input from the Deputy First Minister. We should at least be grateful that Dr Farren has made a speech and remained in his place. He has shown some of his Colleagues what good manners are when dealing with the Assembly.
In his opening speech the Deputy First Minister said that I had welcomed some of the Executive’s proposals. As usual when I find myself being quoted by Ministers, I checked Hansard, and it is only appropriate that I read for the record what I did say on 13 November. I talked about the concerns that Alliance Members had last year about tackling divisions:
"The Executive took no notice of Members this time last year or during the debate in March 2001. I welcome the fact that, since then, they have addressed some of those concerns." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 13, p 62].
I may have welcomed their addressing some of the concerns, but we should remember that it took them over a year to recognise that our concerns were genuine. However, we should always be grateful for late converts to a necessary cause.
We should not allow Mr Durkan to suggest that this is anything other than my recognition of those conversions, following the passage in the House of Mr Kieran McCarthy’s motion that more needed to be done to tackle issues such as flags and graffiti. At least they have responded to that. Therefore I claim a share of the credit, because that only appeared in the Programme for Government this year after an Alliance motion was accepted. If that offends the Deputy First Minister, I apologise, but it is factually accurate.
Dr Farren spoke as Minister for Employment and Learning. At the start of his speech, he clearly stated the concerns that he had for social justice in his Department. I welcome that statement. However, the issues that we are highlighting about divisions do not fall to his Department alone.
There is nothing in this Programme for Government, as it currently stands, to suggest that there is serious cross-departmental action by the Department for Regional Development, the Department for Social Development, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of the Environment and his Department. If those signs were apparent — and perhaps Mr Nesbitt can respond to that effect — it might give us some reason for believing that the Programme for Government is meaningful on tackling divisions. Currently, it is not. The public service agreements do not tie through to show serious action at departmental level. However, I am always an optimist. I wait to be reassured that there will be something coming in the winding-up speech.
I want to deal with what two or three other Members said. I was particularly interested to hear the speech of Alex Maskey. He is the Chief Whip of one of the Executive parties, and therefore I presume that he speaks with a degree of authority for at least one of the Executive parties. In suggesting that the amendment should be rejected, he referred to the document as "moderate". I can only presume that coming from a member of Sinn Féin that is not a compliment. He also said that it was vague and ill-defined, which would not be a compliment coming from anyone. Yet he said that it should be accepted because of the difficult background, and it should be endorsed as a work in progress. Let us hear from Mr Nesbitt that it is a work in progress. Let us hear a few more specifics. If that is the official view in an Executive party, I would love to hear a little more as to how it is work in progress, and a bit more about the details.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Will you vote for it then?

Mr David Ford: Let us hear what the Minister has to say. Let us hear the Minister’s assurances. I always have an open mind in this Chamber, unlike many Members who sit to my left.
Similarly Mr Cobain, when he spoke on behalf of the Committee for Social Development, made it clear that the Committee doubts the ability of the programme to deliver on many of the concerns that it has expressed. Mr Poots, as Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, made clear his concerns from his Committee’s perspective. In particular, the community relations strategy and the victims strategy have badly slipped on their proposed timetables.
Mr Durkan asked me earlier about the practical steps that Alliance had suggested. I have outlined one or two of those. I find it a rather interesting concept that the Deputy First Minister, with the resources of Government, expects the opposition party to produce the practical steps. Those steps have so signally failed to come — unless Mr Nesbitt is going to pleasantly surprise us — in the course of the presentation of this report, the debate on the draft programme and debate today.
As for practical steps, how about specific commitment to promote steps to make it easier for schools to transform to integrated status? It is clear that there is a demand for that. It is clear from what happened to Glengormley Primary School in my constituency last week that that demand can carry through, but it can create enormous difficulties under the current procedures with a group of parents who have divided loyalties on such an issue. If there is a commitment to promoting integrated education and to overcoming divisions, the transformation process must be made easier. That does not require legislation, but it does require Executive action. It is something that we should look to them for.
Let us see more specific proposals from this inter- departmental group. Let us see the Minister spell out, as he winds up this debate, the justification for the belief that his party and the other major party of Government appear to have that this amendment should not stand. Let us hear the specifics that will flesh out the paper as it currently stands to persuade us that we should be supporting their motion and not our amendment.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I thank Mr Ford. He must have mentioned me at least six times, and I am not sure what I felt. It reminds me of something that he said some months ago. He requested that the proper Minister be in the Chamber to allay his fears. The then Deputy First Minister, Mr Mallon, was answering the question. Mr Mallon told him that he was sorry that neither Denis Haughey nor I were there, but that Mr Ford would have to deal with the mere Deputy First Minister. Today Mr Ford is looking for the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister, and I am sorry that he has to deal merely with me.
However, that addresses a very important point. Mr Ford said that there were two matters that he wanted to be addressed and that the second was the divisions in our society. I speak not only on behalf of Mr Haughey, but also on behalf of Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan. I represent an Administration that is cross-community in composition and in its articulation of policies. That is important when trying to heal those divisions. The Programme for Government tries to ensure that areas of need are appropriately targeted, tries to create employment and tries to make sure that we rural-proof what we are trying to do in Northern Ireland. Through the vehicle of the Assembly, of which the Executive is a part, we are trying in our small way — and I accept that it is a small way — to heal the divisions in society. I am glad that Mr Ford made that point, and I do not wish to belittle it by pointing to specific sub-entities and sub-priorities. The Assembly is trying to heal those very divisions. It is what we are all about here.
I listened with interest to the debate on the amendment and to the winding-up speech. The amendment asks that the Assembly
"declines to approve the Northern Ireland Executive Programme for Government because it fails to adequately address the Executive’s stated priorities, does not tackle the deep divisions and inequalities in this society and therefore does not deliver the new beginning envisioned by the Good Friday Agreement."
My Colleague, Seán Farren, other Colleagues and I represent the new beginning of the Good Friday Agreement. Therefore I contend that this document goes much further in trying to achieve a cohesive, inclusive and just society than any other single document. The whole document plays a part. We have been debating the Programme for Government, and it contains a clear vision of:
"a peaceful, cohesive, inclusive, prosperous, stable and fair society, firmly founded on the ‘achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and the protection and vindication of the human rights of all’."
That is what the Programme is about. It is important that any Programme for Government be a visionary document. However, it must set out how that vision will be translated into reality. Our Programme for Government endeavours to do that. It includes priorities and sub-priorities, and it also includes specific actions that will be taken with public service agreements and new service delivery agreements. They are specific and measurable.
5.30pm
The programme makes clear our commitment to tackle division and reduce inequalities. It sets out the actions that we will take to promote equality of opportunity and human rights for all. It recognises that some of the deepest divisions and inequalities exist between those in the poorest and most geographically diverse areas.
At the outset I mentioned rural proofing. Every aspect of the Programme for Government is aimed at ensuring that there is equality of opportunity, in rural and urban areas, among males and females and in every section of Northern Ireland society. The divergence and diversity of Northern Ireland is the reason that we restate our commitment to targeting social need. That is part of our attempt to heal the divisions in Northern Ireland. I have latched on to the precise phrase that was used by Mr Ford: "overcoming divisions" in our society.
The Programme has sub-priorities that cover the needs of victims of the troubles, committing us to improving community relations and tackling the divisions in our society. We are also committed to reviewing our current community relations policy, and putting in place in 2002 a cross-departmental strategy and framework for the promotion of community relations. We will also ensure that there is a co-ordinated and effective response to sectarian and racial intimidation.
There are problems in our society. We have recognised those problems, and I hope that together we will combat them, wherever they may be found. However, it is vital that we do not regard community relations as a simple, stand-alone issue. The priorities and actions throughout the programme are designed to tackle the deep and painful divisions that so clearly persist. I will refer later to our work to improve health. The implementation of every aspect of the programme that I mentioned in my introductory remarks — to help our children to do well in school, to help people to find work, to strengthen the economy — would help us to tackle the deep divisions and inequalities in our society.
I am therefore disappointed that although the document was with the public in draft form for so long — between the end of September and the end of November — the Alliance Party did not present the Executive with detailed proposals that could be implemented. I recognise that that was part of your winding-up — in the sense of a speech.

Mr David Ford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: No. I thank you all the same.
I cannot, therefore, support the amendment, and I encourage all Members present to support the motion. In respect of the amendment, I re-emphasise the ambience of what we do here. Despite the different backgrounds and opinions of the parties who sit around these tables this afternoon — and we see who sits around these tables — we are here together to try to endorse a Programme for Government. That itself, I trust, will heal the divisions of our society.
The Programme for Government contains special commitments, some of which I will examine in turn. Mrs Bell mentioned integrated education. The Programme for Government indicates our support for greater diversity in education. The Department of Education encourages and facilitates the development of integrated education, but it does not impose integration. Rather, it responds to parental demand for that form of schooling. The emphasis for future development of the integrated sector has increasingly been on transforming existing schools to integrated status. All schools will have received information on the requirements for the process of transformation to integrated status.
Mr Kennedy raised the issue of targets for literacy and numeracy at Key Stage 3. The Executive remain fully committed to improving literacy and numeracy levels. The targets for English and mathematics at Key Stage 3 have been reduced; that was done in the light of new information on the progress being made below that level. We are all disappointed, but we must make a realistic and honest assessment of what the education service can be expected to deliver in the period until 2004. That does not mean, however, that there has been any diminution of our efforts to improve standards of literacy and numeracy.
Mr Kennedy also referred to the Burns Report. I can confirm that the Programme for Government commits us to bringing forward proposals by September 2002 for the future structure of post-primary education. Mr Maskey also asked about that.
Targets are important. They must be meaningful and challenging, but, above all, they must be deliverable. If there is slippage, we will report it and try to understand and explain it. We are trying to have achievable baselines and targets. That is progress on our position some years ago.
Mr Byrne spoke about the infrastructure in the north-west region of Northern Ireland. I want to restate the Programme for Government’s commitment to making sure that the road infrastructure in Northern Ireland is maintained to a satisfactory standard. There has been other help for the north-west. The Toome bypass is one example of that, but there is also the recent announcement about the extension of the gas pipeline to the north-west.
Dr Paisley spoke about rural proofing. I mentioned the importance of rural proofing in my response to Mr Ford. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development intends to discuss her proposals for the implementation of rural proofing shortly and that the first meeting of the interdepartmental steering group under her chairmanship will soon take place. Dr Paisley also raised the issue of funding for the work flowing from the vision exercise. At this stage the Budget does not include any additional resources. However, the need for resources for the exercise will be considered following the current consultation and the preparation of the draft action plan in spring 2002.
Dr Paisley referred to fishing and to the important meetings that will take place next week. I can empathise with those concerned about the fishing fleets, and I am mindful of the constituencies in which they are harboured; I shall say no more than that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Gallagher asked about proposals for the future of our acute hospitals, and I understand that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has undertaken consultation. I hope that that will help the Minister to reach decisions on the best way forward with the Executive. She also proposes to issue a consultation paper following discussion with her Executive Colleagues and believes that there is a need for a further consultation paper because of the importance of the issue. Since Mr Fee mentioned the word "consultation" three times — and I will check that Mr Fee is in his place; he is — I am conscious that he made reference to "consultation fatigue", and in his concluding remarks he made a plea for some implementation after four and a half years of consultation. I share his concern, not about the specifics in relation to the Health Service, but about an over- abundance of consultation that can lead to a delay in the delivery of services.
Rev Dr William McCrea raised some points about sustainability in the Programme for Government, which makes clear our commitment to promoting sustainable living and achieving effective protection of the environment. Our desire to secure a competitive economy is not inconsistent with that commitment, and the programme recognises the need for our region to develop sustainability.
The Member also raised the issue of water quality and questioned why we do not have a more ambitious target for river water quality. We are doing much on that. The Assembly needs to bear in mind that action is being taken where river quality is below the standard required to enable us to meet our commitments. The Environment and Heritage Service, an agency of the Department of the Environment, has identified a number of targets on which specific action is being taken to address water quality problems.
I will comment now on targets, actions, public service and service delivery agreements. The service delivery agreements should now be with Committees for consultation and discussion. I ask Members to look at them carefully and to contribute to their improvement — they are more detailed than the public service agreements and are in their formative stage. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister looked at the service delivery agreements as part of a developmental process, and the Committees’ contributions will play a very important part in formulating them.
Mr Cobain spoke about housing and fuel poverty. The Programme for Government commits us to ensure that everyone can get access to decent, affordable housing. In the Executive’s first Programme for Government — and I hope that the second one will be endorsed today — the Assembly committed itself to undertake a range of actions. Those commitments in last year’s programme included the building of new dwellings every year in the social housing sector, and arranging for the adaptation of properties to ensure that house design meets the needs of older people and those with disabilities. We aimed to raise the standard of the Housing Executive’s stock by making improvements to dwellings. We also had a commitment to carry out heating conversions to gas or oil each year to ensure more economic and efficient heating. These actions from last year’s Programme for Government remain valid and are supported in the Department for Social Development’s public service agreement, which forms parts of the Programme for Government document, which has comprehensive targets for reducing fuel poverty in 2002-03. One example is the Department for Social Development’s objective 2.1:
"By December 2004, reduce by 20,000 the numbers of fuel poor households in the private sector by providing energy efficient low cost heating/insulation systems."
Action will be taken in support of that target — we will support heating and insulation work to vulnerable households under the warm homes scheme. By carrying that targeted action through, work will be completed on 6,250 homes in the year 2002-03. There are clear, identifiable targets and actions to deliver that aspect of housing and address the poverty of the housing sector. It is to be hoped that those clear aims will be sustained.
Mr ONeill also dealt with homelessness. The new housing Bill will impact on that issue by refining the definitions of homelessness and intentional homelessness. The Housing Executive launched a review of its homelessness strategy and services on 24 September 2001. Statutory and voluntary agencies that work in the area of housing, as well as probation, health and social services and community groups have been consulted. With apologies to Mr Fee, consultation will finish on 31 December 2001. The review will be finalised by March 2002, and an implementation plan will be produced to progress work on the various recommendations.
The Housing Executive has identified additional need — totalling £300,000 — in relation to voluntary agencies in the community which assist the Housing Executive in delivering its obligations to the homeless. A bid for that funding will be made in the December monitoring round, and it will be aimed at the most vulnerable people in the community.
Mr Poots made some points about the review of public administration. This is an important issue. One Member described it as, perhaps, the single most important element. The Executive are committed to ensuring that there is greater accountability for all services in Northern Ireland through a more efficient and effective structure of administration at local and regional levels. We are committed to undertaking a comprehensive strategic review of public administration. We realise that there have been difficulties in advancing that, but it is a difficult matter, and it will take time. A range of complex issues must be resolved before we can embark on such an ambitious project. All aspects must be taken into account, such as health provision or the Burns Report on education. A complex project is being considered, but I remain committed to it, and I am confident that it will commence early in the new year, with clear terms of reference to be seen. The Assembly and its Committees will have a full opportunity to give their views on the review.
Mr Poots also raised the issue of the commissioner for children. As Members know, the consultation period closed on 8 November. We are in the process of analysing the responses and making decisions on the way forward. The Executive remain committed to having a commissioner in place by June 2002. We have invested considerable effort in ensuring that the consultation was as comprehensive as possible. We tried to find out not merely what adults think children wish, but what children wish for themselves. That was not easy; it was difficult and sensitive.
Over 11,000 copies of the consultation document and 260,000 information leaflets were distributed. In answer to the specific question, the commissioner will be appointed in line with public appointment procedures.
Mr Poots also asked about the equality impact assessment. The Equality Commission issued practical guidance on how equality impact assessment should be carried out. The guidelines relate to individual policies. It is not practicable to apply them directly to the Programme for Government, which covers a wide range of policies, programmes and actions. The problem of how best to link them together has been, and will continue to be, discussed with the Equality Commission. As Departments develop proposals for inclusion in the Programme for Government, the commission will consider whether those policies, programmes, actions and matters, which are included in the sub-priorities, will promote equality of opportunity and/or address inequalities for any of the categories under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Individual policies mentioned in the Programme for Government will be subject to full equality impact assessment by Departments, in accordance with their equality schemes.
I agree with Mr Dallat on the issue of proper and effective management of public resources and the review of public administration. Our services should give value for money. Whether we are in a Committee, in the Chamber or in consultation with those in the community, we must at all times try to secure the best output for the given input of resources.
I hope that new initiatives such as public service agreements and service delivery agreements will have an impact. Committees must make their contribution to the improvement of service delivery agreements so that our services are managed properly and effectively. Six needs and effectiveness evaluations are being conducted throughout the sector, and they will make a contribution. All those measures should give better value for money.
The issue of cancer services was raised by Iris Robinson. Since September we have been examining how we can improve the Health Service, including services for those suffering from cancer, heart disease and renal failure. Paragraph 3.6 of the Programme for Government commits us to improving access to cardiac surgery, strengthening treatment processes for cancer suffers at local units and at the cancer centre in Belfast, and increasing the number of renal dialysis sessions.
When I last spoke on the Programme for Government, I mentioned the money that is being spent on health, and the feeling in the 1940s, when the Health Service was set up, that the service would become less costly. However, it has become more costly simply to stand still. An additional £41 million has been allocated to health and social services. To put that in context, that is an additional £224 million, or a rise of 9·7%. That includes a transfer of £19 million from the social security budget, so that the actual cash increase is £205 million, or a rise of 8·9%, which does not allow for inflation.
The bulk of that extra money is required to meet the rising cost of providing essential services. The £41 million will go some way to improving healthcare. However, I have a caveat: it is not enough simply to provide money. It is the management of services that will make the difference. There will be value for money if the output is maximised for the given level of input. Therefore, the needs and effectiveness evaluations are important.
Finally — [Interruption].
You know what they say about the opposition and the enemy. Perhaps I am totally confused, and perhaps that will be recorded for posterity and people will not know what I really mean.

Dr Sean Farren: I am not sure what side you are on.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Mr McCarthy raised the issue of free personal care. Earlier this year the Assembly resolved that the Executive should implement in full the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly. We put particular emphasis on that provision.
An interdepartmental group has been established to consider the scope for moving to the provision of free care, resources permitting. That group will advise if or when — I hope that it is when, not if — free personal care for the elderly might be introduced. The costs have been estimated to be at least £25 million per annum. The interdepartmental group will take account of the findings of the Scottish Executive’s care development group’s recent report, ‘Fair Care for Older People’.
Ms McWilliams referred to public-private partnerships (PPPs). The Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report and recommendations are being fully considered by the PPP working group, which was established by the Executive in accordance with the commitment in the Programme for Government. The group will review the use of PPPs to achieve value for money and to address the infrastructural deficit in Northern Ireland. The working group is also considering alternative sources of funding for improvements to public services. The group will provide useful information. A report is expected by March 2002, and it will be the subject of public consultation prior to any final decisions. I hope that those decisions will have been taken by September 2002.
The Programme for Government is a comprehensive document. Many parts of the programme try to heal the divisions in our society, which was the central concern of those who tabled the amendment. I commend the programme to the Assembly.
Question,
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 46; Noes 18
Ayes
Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Tierney, Jim Wilson.
Noes
Eileen Bell, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ford, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Kieran McCarthy, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly endorses the Programme for Government agreed by the Executive.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the motion requires cross-community support? The figures were not given.

Ms Jane Morrice: There is no requirement for cross-community support for the Programme for Government.
Adjourned at 6.10 pm.